Black. Man ,With. White. Sister. Wives ..

[harry brown]

On. The. Sister. Wives. Show.  A Black. Man. Has. Two. White. ,Sister ,Wives.. One. Of. The. White. Sister. Wives. Is. Pregnant. .They. All ,Seem. Happy. Together ,They. All. Sound. Happy. Together. ........Thinking. Of. Marcus. Garvey  Poem. Wanting. To. Desert....Future. Of. Unity. Of. Black. Men. Is. Gloomy. .....

[Pioneer1]

Well.....lol

 

A lot of AfroAmerican women swear up and down that THEY would never be sister-wives and share a husband so......

[ProfD]

Must be a warped form of Fantasy Island the n8gglet edition: 

 

Garbage TV shows with zero nutritional value in terms of intellect provide another form of empty entertainment for people who don't get high and/or drunk. 

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

A lot of AfroAmerican women swear up and down that THEY would never be sister-wives and share a husband so......

Men and women both talk a lotta sh8t about what they wouldn't do until they're approached with an Indecent Proposal:

 

 

I'm not surprised by what folks will do when the price is right. 

[Pioneer1]

The same sista running around talking about she wouldn't share HER husband with another woman is often found trying to share ANOTHER WOMAN'S HUSBAND behind her back!

I know some women who ONLY mess around with married men.
 

That's part of that immature selfish mindset so many of our people have both male and female.
 

[frankster]

Marriage was originally only practice by the rich to ensure their wealth status influence(power) and progeny ...a purely economic and political contract between two families.

When it comes to matters of the heart.... If all involve are happy...then I see no blame or fault. - regardless of the BLACK FINANCIAL DRAIN.

 

Culturally in the East having more than one wife is commonplace....Having more than one husband is rare.

On the other hand before the rise of Patriarchy...Polyamory was popular.

[Pioneer1]

7 hours ago, frankster said:

Marriage was originally only practice by the rich to ensure their wealth status influence(power) and progeny ...a purely economic and political contract between two families.

When it comes to matters of the heart.... If all involve are happy...then I see no blame or fault. - regardless of the BLACK FINANCIAL DRAIN.

 

Culturally in the East having more than one wife is commonplace....Having more than one husband is rare.

On the other hand before the rise of Patriarchy...Polyamory was popular.

I agree with every bit of this.

I'm actually surprised to hear that last part from you about Patriarchy, especially given how strongly you defend the Bible.....lol

[frankster]

9 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I agree with every bit of this.

I'm actually surprised to hear that last part from you about Patriarchy, especially given how strongly you defend the Bible.....lol

The Scriptures are about Righteousness.

I study the scriptures for that Purpose

I find that Righteousness is very Fruitful and Good. 

 

[Cynique]

Back in my young, single years, my friends and i always discussed and fantasized about having a  guy for every mood, a smart guy, a fun guy, a sexy guy, a handyman, and a big spender because it was so hard to find the "complete package", aka "Mr. Right".  We knew the chances of this happening were slim, because although males tend to be polygamous, they "slut shamed" any females who wanted to diversify her steady male companionship. So most of us just exclusively dated one type  at a time, eventually settling for Mr. OK when it came to marriage, -  suspecting that 2 husbands would be more trouble than they're worth.

 

I can't vouch for what the situation is nowadays, however. 

[Delano]

10 minutes ago, Cynique said:

 

I can't vouch for what the situation is nowadays, however.

The song remains the same.

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, Cynique said:

...because it was so hard to find the "complete package"...

I can't vouch for what the situation is nowadays, however. 

1 hour ago, Cynique said:

50 minutes ago, Delano said:

The song remains the same.

 

Right.  Nothing has changed when it comes to both men and women both looking for the complete package in another person.  It's a unicorn that does not exist. 

 

I believe the best human beings can do is rely on the laws of mutual attraction and build from there.  8 billion people on the planet and counting tells me it still works that way.

[Delano]

2 hours ago, ProfD said:

8 billion people on the planet and counting tells me it still works that way

Don't forget the divorces 

[Troy]

Divorces destroy wealth and should be done with much more thought than entering into marriage

Mr. or Mrs. good enough, or OK, is no longer acceptable, though it is far and away the most likely outcome. No one is perfect or can be all things to someone.

 

If two white  woman want to share one Black man, great if it works for them. 
 

Our society is not designed or set up for these types of familial configurations — we haven’t even come to terms with “mixed race” relationships let alone polygamous ones — so they will have more difficulty that a traditional relationship, which is already challenging.

[ProfD]

2 hours ago, Troy said:

Divorces destroy wealth and should be done with much more thought than entering into marriage

Mr. or Mrs. good enough, or OK, is no longer acceptable, though it is far and away the most likely outcome. No one is perfect or can be all things to someone.

 

Funny enough, it's stated that marriage should not be entered into unadvisedly or lightly.... 

 

But, the reality is that 1) most folks are just good enough and 2) they aren't wealthy so in divorce the fall is soft.

 

 

[Pioneer1]

I agree with the earlier post that said marriage was originally designed by the rich for the rich to consolidate wealth.
It was also designed to establish connections between families.

 

 

 

 

 

frankster

 

 

The Scriptures are about Righteousness.

I study the scriptures for that Purpose

I find that Righteousness is very Fruitful and Good. 

 

Well you talk about "before the rise of Patriarchy" but according to Genesis of the Bible Adam was meant to "rule over" Eve so that would lead one to believe that if they Bible were true...Patriarchy was established from the beginning.

 

But obviously I don't believe that.
I believe society was pretty much egalitarian across the globe before Caucasians started traveling, modifying, and influencing other cultures with their poisonous religious and cultural practices.

[frankster]

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I agree with the earlier post that said marriage was originally designed by the rich for the rich to consolidate wealth.
It was also designed to establish connections between families.

True

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

frankster

 

 

The Scriptures are about Righteousness.

I study the scriptures for that Purpose

I find that Righteousness is very Fruitful and Good. 

 

Well you talk about "before the rise of Patriarchy" but according to Genesis of the Bible Adam was meant to "rule over" Eve so that would lead one to believe that if they Bible were true...Patriarchy was established from the beginning.

Originally Woman was created to be man's help meet....that was the arrangement in the beginning.

Genesis 2:18

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

 

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

But obviously I don't believe that.
I believe society was pretty much egalitarian across the globe before Caucasians started traveling, modifying, and influencing other cultures with their poisonous religious and cultural practices.

Caucasians have only started travelling the globe 800 - 1200 years ago.....Patriarchy been around 4000 to 12,000 yrs

 

[Pioneer1]

frankster

 

Originally Woman was created to be man's help meet....that was the arrangement in the beginning.

Genesis 2:18

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

And that's one way of looking at and understanding that scripture.
However there is another way, especially when you read a more accurate translation.

But let's take THIS translation that you posted:

 

"It's not good that THE MAN should be alone"

 

It didn't say that it wasn't good for "men" in general to be alone but it was talking about a SPECIFIC MAN.

 

What am I getting at?

 

The allegory  of Adam and Eve refers not to all of humanity but to a specific group of humanity....namely White people or Caucasians (a term I tend to use more often).

More so than that Indigenous races and cultures around the planet, Caucasian cultures in their various forms tend to be far more misogynistic and oppressive of women demanding absolute submission by them to their men.
This scripture is a reflection of that.

 

 

 

 

Caucasians have only started travelling the globe 800 - 1200 years ago.....Patriarchy been around 4000 to 12,000 yrs

 

Caucasians have been traveling the planet by one method or another since about 2000 B.C.

 

But I have a question for you...
Is "male rule" the same as Patriarchy?

I say one isn't necessarily the same as the other.

[Cynique]

I am amazed at how biblical interpreters read the mind of a god they've never seen nor heard. And how much credence they give to what has been revised,  edited, omitted, manipulated and incorrectly translated. if the Adam and Eve allegory originated with men then those who created these explanations are simply putting their own spin on evolution. How do we know Eve(females) didn't come before Adam(males) but with their physical brawn, males  imposed their version of who came first between males or females. After all, females are the species who give birth. It's an extremely convoluted issue.

 

I, of course, speak as a person of little faith.

[frankster]

On 8/28/2022 at 9:59 AM, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

Originally Woman was created to be man's help meet....that was the arrangement in the beginning.

Genesis 2:18

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

And that's one way of looking at and understanding that scripture.
However there is another way, especially when you read a more accurate translation.

But let's take THIS translation that you posted:

 

"It's not good that THE MAN should be alone"

 

It didn't say that it wasn't good for "men" in general to be alone but it was talking about a SPECIFIC MAN.

 

What am I getting at?

 

The allegory  of Adam and Eve refers not to all of humanity but to a specific group of humanity....namely White people or Caucasians (a term I tend to use more often).

More so than that Indigenous races and cultures around the planet, Caucasian cultures in their various forms tend to be far more misogynistic and oppressive of women demanding absolute submission by them to their men.
This scripture is a reflection of that.

The Word "Man" is often used in place or as a shorten form for Mankind(Humanity as a whole)....The word man is usually use to mean an individual male human.

Genesis 5:2

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created

 

Neither can it be solely referring to the caucasians, as these legends are found among a few other cultures

 

On 8/28/2022 at 9:59 AM, Pioneer1 said:

 

Caucasians have only started travelling the globe 800 - 1200 years ago.....Patriarchy been around 4000 to 12,000 yrs

 

Caucasians have been traveling the planet by one method or another since about 2000 B.C.

 

But I have a question for you...
Is "male rule" the same as Patriarchy?

I say one isn't necessarily the same as the other.

Male Rule seems to imply only men  can occupy positions of power

Patriarchy means from father to son but if there is no son... it can go to  a daughter

[ProfD]

23 hours ago, Cynique said:

I am amazed at how biblical interpreters read the mind of a god they've never seen nor heard. And how much credence they give to what has been revised,  edited, omitted, manipulated and incorrectly translated. 

 

I, of course, speak as a person of little faith.

@Cynique, in that thought process we are conjoined my sista. 

 

I'm not absent from these discussions due to ignorance or as an agnostic. 

 

I know religion is a deeper rabbit hole than politics. 

 

Telling kids there is no Santa Claus is relatively easy and/or they grow out it. 

 

But, when it comes to the sky fairy and questioning folks about their faith...some are ready to cut and shoot for their beliefs. 

[frankster]

On 8/28/2022 at 5:07 PM, Cynique said:

I am amazed at how biblical interpreters read the mind of a god they've never seen nor heard. And how much credence they give to what has been revised,  edited, omitted, manipulated and incorrectly translated. if the Adam and Eve allegory originated with men then those who created these explanations are simply putting their own spin on evolution. How do we know Eve(females) didn't come before Adam(males) but with their physical brawn, males  imposed their version of who came first between males or females. After all, females are the species who give birth. It's an extremely convoluted issue.

 

I, of course, speak as a person of little faith.

The  Biogenetic law or Recapitulation Theory which is now accepted as false ...in some way lends credence to women (Eve) preceding Adam.

I somewhat still hold  on to the idea that women were  here before man....because every fetus is first female before some become male.

The Scriptures says virgin birth (Parthenogenesis) and or asexual birth is real ...according to science this never happens in Human and or mammals.

 

[Pioneer1]

Cynique

 

 

How do we know Eve(females) didn't come before Adam(males) but with their physical brawn, males  imposed their version of who came first between males or females. After all, females are the species who give birth. It's an extremely convoluted issue.

 

Who said one HAD to come before the other?

Could it be that The CREATOR Created both males and females at the same exact time?

 

 

 

 

 

frankster

 

 

Neither can it be solely referring to the caucasians, as these legends are found among a few other cultures

 

When you take into account what the word "Adam" means, then you realize it refers to Caucasians or that race we commonly call "White"

That verse wasn't talking about ALL of humanity, but a specific group of humanity.

 

 

 

Patriarchy means from father to son but if there is no son... it can go to  a daughter

 

That's Patrilineal.

Patriarchal means men rule.

You often have MATRILINEAL successorship of power in a PATRIARCHAL society where power is traced through the mother's bloodline rather than the father's.
Which makes more sense anyway.

[Cynique]

25 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Who said one HAD to come before the other?

Could it be that The CREATOR Created both males and females at the same exact time?

The allegory says it, when it refers to Eve being made from Adam's rib. 

[frankster]

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

frankster

 

 

Neither can it be solely referring to the caucasians, as these legends are found among a few other cultures

 

When you take into account what the word "Adam" means, then you realize it refers to Caucasians or that race we commonly call "White"

That verse wasn't talking about ALL of humanity, but a specific group of humanity.

You have "Adam" which means son of the Earth/ground - red earth

And "Dam" which means Blood.....all man is of One blood and its red.

 

18 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

 

Patriarchy means from father to son but if there is no son... it can go to  a daughter

 

That's Patrilineal.

Patriarchal means men rule.

You often have MATRILINEAL successorship of power in a PATRIARCHAL society where power is traced through the mother's bloodline rather than the father's.
Which makes more sense anyway.

Splitting hairs Now are we....If Patriarchy means "Men Rule"

I have seen quite a bit  Patriarchal societies in which women sit on the Throne or hold the seat of Power.

A Google search states the following about Patriarchy .......a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.

[Pioneer1]

frankster

 

 

You have "Adam" which means son of the Earth/ground - red earth

And "Dam" which means Blood.....all man is of One blood and its red.

 

The word "Adam" literally means "Of Blood"

But like many Hebrew terms it has two meanings in Hebrew:

1. Of Blood
and/or
2. Red One (person), because Dam is also used for the color red.
 

Plain and simple.

No spin or re-interpretation by Christian theologians to try to give it a newer and more confusing definition.

The story of Adam and Eve is an old allegory written to symbolize the making of White people by the Elohim.

The word ADHAMAH means soil or dirt, not ADAM.
That's what I mean about deception and mis-intepretation on the part of Caucasian scholars who know  better but will try to deceive the reader by confusing the definitions.

 

 

 

 

I have seen quite a bit  Patriarchal societies in which women sit on the Throne or hold the seat of Power.

 

Ofcourse.
Because  one woman holding power over the land doesn't necessarily cancel out a society being a Patriarchy.

 

First of all, just because she sits on the throne...doesn't mean she's wielding any power.  It could be just ceremonial like the Queen of England allegedly is.

Second, even if she did hold SOME of the power...as long as the culture determines that the families are headed by men, most of the institutions are headed by men, and most of the local governments are headed by men....it's still a Patriarchy regardless as to who is on top.

 

 

A Google search states the following about Patriarchy .......a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.

 

Well, you might find anything on Google...lol.
25 different definitions for a word.
Some definitions you never heard of before and others that completely contradict each other.

When it comes to discussion, I like to stick with Webster's or Oxford dictionaries.

 

According to Webster, the Definition of patriarchy is:

Quote

 

social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line

broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power

 

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriarchy 

 

So for it to be a Patriarchy the fathers must rule the families, the wives and children must depend on them, and the inheritance and power goes down the male line.  That's a broader and more accurate definition.

 

[Troy]

On 8/28/2022 at 5:07 PM, Cynique said:

I am amazed at how biblical interpreters read the mind of a god they've never seen nor heard. And how much credence they give to what has been revised,  edited, omitted, manipulated and incorrectly translated.

 

Me too.

 

@ProfD not only are folks ready to kill they are ready to die over their beliefs. A significant portion of people killed have been killed over seemingly minor religious differences.

 

21 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Well, you might find anything on Google…

Sadly this is true and has created a great deal of confusion. Plus not every damn thing can be found on Google — even if it is on the web! 

 

90% of the sites on the web are undiscoverable on Google. 66% of people who perform a search on Google never click through to an underlying site, and, believe it or not, everything is not on the web. 
 

all of these super powerful sites make me sick…

 

…. What were y’all talking about

 

 

 

[Pioneer1]

Troy

Lately I've been exploring alternative search engines and looking for ones with less of a filter and a broader range than Google.

Most of them tend to be more filtered and limited than Google itself.

I wish I had a "magic" search engine that would simply allow me to dig up all there is on the internet so that I can decide what I want to view instead of having my options limited.

 

[frankster]

On 9/1/2022 at 4:32 PM, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

 

You have "Adam" which means son of the Earth/ground - red earth

And "Dam" which means Blood.....all man is of One blood and its red.

 

The word "Adam" literally means "Of Blood"

But like many Hebrew terms it has two meanings in Hebrew:

1. Of Blood
and/or
2. Red One (person), because Dam is also used for the color red.

No argument here....

 

On 9/1/2022 at 4:32 PM, Pioneer1 said:

 

Plain and simple.

No spin or re-interpretation by Christian theologians to try to give it a newer and more confusing definition.

The story of Adam and Eve is an old allegory written to symbolize the making of White people by the Elohim.

I believe there is only one Race....The human Race.

The Story of Adam and Eve is the Story of the of The Human Race.....much is hidden within the story.

 

 

On 9/1/2022 at 4:32 PM, Pioneer1 said:

The word ADHAMAH means soil or dirt, not ADAM.
That's what I mean about deception and mis-intepretation on the part of Caucasian scholars who know  better but will try to deceive the reader by confusing the definitions.

True its like, John and Johnson, one is a derivative of the other.

 

On 9/1/2022 at 4:32 PM, Pioneer1 said:

 

I have seen quite a bit  Patriarchal societies in which women sit on the Throne or hold the seat of Power.

 

Ofcourse.
Because  one woman holding power over the land doesn't necessarily cancel out a society being a Patriarchy.

 

First of all, just because she sits on the throne...doesn't mean she's wielding any power.  It could be just ceremonial like the Queen of England allegedly is.

Second, even if she did hold SOME of the power...as long as the culture determines that the families are headed by men, most of the institutions are headed by men, and most of the local governments are headed by men....it's still a Patriarchy regardless as to who is on top.

You asked the question "Is "male rule" the same as Patriarchy?" Rome is the nearest thing we have to "Male Rule" as the term itself implies.

Patriarchy really only means father to son if there is no son then a daughter will suffice.

I know you are not trying to say all the QUEENS that ever sit on the Throne of England were ceremonial ?

Holding the highest office in the land is no joke....Its God King/Queen and Country.

 

On 9/1/2022 at 4:32 PM, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

A Google search states the following about Patriarchy .......a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.

 

Well, you might find anything on Google...lol.
25 different definitions for a word.
Some definitions you never heard of before and others that completely contradict each other.

When it comes to discussion, I like to stick with Webster's or Oxford dictionaries.

 

According to Webster, the Definition of patriarchy is:

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriarchy 

 

So for it to be a Patriarchy the fathers must rule the families, the wives and children must depend on them, and the inheritance and power goes down the male line.  That's a broader and more accurate definition.

 

Isn't that what I said father to son and google

[Pioneer1]

frankster

 

I believe there is only one Race....The human Race.

 

Believe what you will.
Looks like you and Troy have a lot in common...lol.

 

The Story of Adam and Eve is the Story of the of The Human Race.....much is hidden within the story.

As I've stated before, there were stories MUCH older already circulating that the Adam and Eve story of the Old Testament was actually based on whether we're talking about Enkidu of original Sumeria, or Adapa of the Akkadians.
The Adam and Eve story is just a forgery of earlier stories that the compilers of the Old Testament took from earlier sources.

And just like Adam and Eve, those earlier stories were basically allegories talking about the bringing of the White race into existence in a world of people who were already here.

 

 

 

True its like, John and Johnson, one is a derivative of the other.

 

I don't know enough about Hebrew to say that "Adam" was derived from "Adamah", however I DO KNOW that they are TWO SEPARATE WORDS with TWO SEPARATE MEANINGS.

 

Adam DOES NOT mean dirt or clay....again it means "Of Blood" and is the older Hebrew way of describing Caucacasian/White people.

Another bit of knowledge to drop on you........
 

When you read in the Old Testament the term "son of man" it's really an identification.  
The correct translation of the Old Testament's term "son of man" is actually "son of Adam".
And it means a fellow White person.

The Hebrew word for a man is "Is" or "Ish"....so when they identify one as "son of man" they are being specific of the TYPE of man they're speaking of.

 

 

I know you are not trying to say all the QUEENS that ever sit on the Throne of England were ceremonial ?

 

No, not necessarily.
But in the case of England today....yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 Isn't that what I said father to son and google

 

No.
Because your definition LIMITS a Patriarchy to simply lineage, while the actual definition makes it clear that it's more than simply lineage but about power in the community as well as in many cases nationally.

As I said earlier, if it's just about lineage from father to son and nothing more...then it's called simply PATRILINEAL instead of Patriarchal.

[frankster]

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

I believe there is only one Race....The human Race.

 

Believe what you will.
Looks like you and Troy have a lot in common...lol.

Do you believe in more than one Human Race?

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The Story of Adam and Eve is the Story of the of The Human Race.....much is hidden within the story.

As I've stated before, there were stories MUCH older already circulating that the Adam and Eve story of the Old Testament was actually based on whether we're talking about Enkidu of original Sumeria, or Adapa of the Akkadians.
The Adam and Eve story is just a forgery of earlier stories that the compilers of the Old Testament took from earlier sources.

And just like Adam and Eve, those earlier stories were basically allegories talking about the bringing of the White race into existence in a world of people who were already here.

I know of a Black man and who  has Black wife bearing  him a white skin Blond haired blue eyed Child.....is that child  of a different Race - Albino

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

True its like, John and Johnson, one is a derivative of the other.

 

I don't know enough about Hebrew to say that "Adam" was derived from "Adamah", however I DO KNOW that they are TWO SEPARATE WORDS with TWO SEPARATE MEANINGS.

 

Adam DOES NOT mean dirt or clay....again it means "Of Blood" and is the older Hebrew way of describing Caucacasian/White people.

All humans have Blood and that Blood is red..

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Another bit of knowledge to drop on you........
 

When you read in the Old Testament the term "son of man" it's really an identification.  
The correct translation of the Old Testament's term "son of man" is actually "son of Adam".
And it means a fellow White person.

The Hebrew word for a man is "Is" or "Ish"....so when they identify one as "son of man" they are being specific of the TYPE of man they're speaking of.

Thanks for dropping that Knowledge...

Son of Man, meaning son of Adam is true as Adam is seen as the first Man.....Son of God is just as good as Adam the first Man is seen also as the son of God.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I know you are not trying to say all the QUEENS that ever sit on the Throne of England were ceremonial ?

 

No, not necessarily.
But in the case of England today....yes.

So its not "Male Rule" but Patriarchy....in which women can and do hold and control the Highest levers of Power

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

 Isn't that what I said father to son and google

 

No.
Because your definition LIMITS a Patriarchy to simply lineage, while the actual definition makes it clear that it's more than simply lineage but about power in the community as well as in many cases nationally.

 Yes...But your question was is patriarchy and Male rule the same...I chose to delineate the subtle difference in that Patriarchy does not mean exclusive Male Rule as in Rome.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

As I said earlier, if it's just about lineage from father to son and nothing more...then it's called simply PATRILINEAL instead of Patriarchal.

Now we going to split hairs...

I never said it's just about lineage....Patrilineal only and exclusively goes through the male line of descent.

Now I  said   "if there is no son... it can go to  a daughter"....Male Rule is different

The suffix "PATRI" means Father and "ARCHY" means Rule - Father Rule and Male Rule is different, not every male is a father.

So the word "PATRIARCHY" actually  means Father Rule.....Not "Male Rule"

[Pioneer1]

frankster

 

 

Do you believe in more than one Human Race?

 

I believe there is more than one human race.
I believe there are multiple races.

 

 

 

I know of a Black man and has Black wife having a Blond haired blue eyed Child.....is that child a different Race - Albino

 

Albinos aren't a RACE but a mutation WITH IN a race.
Their different phenotype is caused by an UNINTENDED occurrence in their genes.
 

White people aren't a MUTATION, they are a BREED .
Their different phenotype was designed on purpose through selection in the mating process.
 

 

 

All humans have Blood and that Blood is red.

 

But all humans don't SHOW blood through their skin, like Caucasians do.
Which is another meaning of the Hebrew word "Adam" or "the blusher"

As I said in the other thread, Adam has two meanings in Hebrew:

1. One of blood
2. One who shows blood (blushes)



 

Son of Man, meaning son of Adam is true as Adam is seen as the first Man.

 

First White/Caucasian man....not the first man period.
Even the Old Testament scriptures supports the fact that Adam was NOT the first man.

Besides the Jews who were the central characters of it...other Caucasians who are mentioned in the Old Testament are often identified as "Son of Man" to distinguish them from the people of color who also resided in the land.
 

Read the books of Daniel and Ezekiel and you see scriptures where a person is described as looking like a "son of man" (son of Adam) coming or doing something.
In other words...looking like a Caucasian as opposed to the other people of the land who were Black or Brown.

 

 

 

....Son of God is just as good as Adam the first Man is seen also as the son of God.
 

No.
That's a later on twisted NEW TESTAMENT interpretation of the term.

The Romans and Greeks screwed it all the way up as well as LIED on it while trying to interpret the original Hebrew words and terms.

Infact, if you read the Bible and pay attention......in the Old Testament there were MULTIPLE "sons of man" (sons of Adam); but by the time you get to the New Testament you find only ONE and this is usually referring to Christ or the Messiah.

 

 

 

 

 

So its not "Male Rule" but Patriarchy....in which women can and do hold and control the Highest levers of Power

 

ONE woman sitting at the top will not change it from being a Patriarchy, but if TOO MANY women start sitting at the highest levels of power (and how many is "too many" varies from system to system) then it's no longer a Patriarchy but either Egalitarian or a Matriarchy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the word "PATRIARCHY" actual means Father Rule.....Not "Male Rule"

 

It means male rule because the males are the "fathers" of the nation.
That's why the men who founded the United States are called the "Founding Fathers" whether they were actual fathers or not.
They are "fathers" or male authority figures of this nation.

Patri may LITERALLY mean father but it's PRACTICAL use in language is for any dominant male authority.

 

It's also the root of the word PATRI-otism.
Support for the land of your fathers.
 

[frankster]

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

 

Do you believe in more than one Human Race?

 

I believe there is more than one human race.
I believe there are multiple races.

Then we will have to disagree....

For me  Humanity is of One ....Race is a social construct - based on political expediency.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

I know of a Black man and has Black wife having a Blond haired blue eyed Child.....is that child a different Race - Albino

 

Albinos aren't a RACE but a mutation WITH IN a race.
Their different phenotype is caused by an UNINTENDED occurrence in their genes.

True

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

White people aren't a MUTATION, they are a BREED .
Their different phenotype was designed on purpose through selection in the mating process.

What Phenotype is exclusive to "The Caucasian"?

 

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

All humans have Blood and that Blood is red.

But all humans don't SHOW blood through their skin, like Caucasians do.
Which is another meaning of the Hebrew word "Adam" or "the blusher"

As I said in the other thread, Adam has two meanings in Hebrew:

1. One of blood
2. One who shows blood (blushes)

Yes  they do not show blood through skin"Like" Caucasians do.....They are not Caucasians.

Like humans they do show blood when the blush and or bruise from under the skin....like African, Caucasian,Chinese or Indians do - each in their own individual  way.

 

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Son of Man, meaning son of Adam is true as Adam is seen as the first Man.

 

First White/Caucasian man....not the first man period.
Even the Old Testament scriptures supports the fact that Adam was NOT the first man.

Besides the Jews who were the central characters of it...other Caucasians who are mentioned in the Old Testament are often identified as "Son of Man" to distinguish them from the people of color who also resided in the land.
 

Read the books of Daniel and Ezekiel and you see scriptures where a person is described as looking like a "son of man" (son of Adam) coming or doing something.
In other words...looking like a Caucasian as opposed to the other people of the land who were Black or Brown.

Provide the Scriptures of which you speak....They are quite a few Scriptures that uses the terms son of man/God

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

....Son of God is just as good as Adam the first Man is seen also as the son of God.
 

No.
That's a later on twisted NEW TESTAMENT interpretation of the term.

The Romans and Greeks screwed it all the way up as well as LIED on it while trying to interpret the original Hebrew words and terms. 
Infact, if you read the Bible and pay attention......in the Old Testament there were MULTIPLE "sons of man" (sons of Adam); but by the time you get to the New Testament you find only ONE and this is usually referring to Christ or the Messiah.

Ok....in the below Scriptures to whom was God  referring to

 

Hosea 1:10

Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

Exodus 4:22-23

And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

Psalm 2:7

I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

So its not "Male Rule" but Patriarchy....in which women can and do hold and control the Highest levers of Power

 

ONE woman sitting at the top will not change it from being a Patriarchy, but if TOO MANY women start sitting at the highest levels of power (and how many is "too many" varies from system to system) then it's no longer a Patriarchy but either Egalitarian or a Matriarchy.

One woman breaks the Rule of Male rule.....

One or More Women does not break the Rule of Patriarchy.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

So the word "PATRIARCHY" actual means Father Rule.....Not "Male Rule"

 

It means male rule because the males are the "fathers" of the nation.
That's why the men who founded the United States are called the "Founding Fathers" whether they were actual fathers or not.
They are "fathers" or male authority figures of this nation.

Patri may LITERALLY mean father but it's PRACTICAL use in language is for any dominant male authority.

 

It's also the root of the word PATRI-otism.
Support for the land of your fathers.
 

It can be said that The US remain "Male rule" and  but not necessarily Patriarchal.

Which meaning is more true the Literal or the Practical?

 

 

[Pioneer1]

frankster

 

For me  Humanity is of One ....Race is a social construct - based on political expediency.

 

  

 So, you believe the differences between these two men is a "social construct" and doesn't have a physical and genetic factor?

So since you believe race is a "social construct", you're saying eliminate the "race construct" and no one would be able to tell the difference between them??

 

 

 

 

 

What Phenotype is exclusive to "The Caucasian"?

 

The phenotypical GROUP traits of nearly white skin, red/blonde hair, blue/green eyes, weaker bones and muscles.
 

Again, individually these traits can be found among all other races.  But only among Caucasians are they ALL found in a group.

Thus the term "race".

Yes  they do not show blood through skin"Like" Caucasians do.....They are not Caucasians.

Like humans they do show blood when the blush and or bruise from under the skin....like African, Caucasian,Chinese or Indians do - each in their own individual  way.
 

Ok?
Tell me something I DON'T know.

I didn't say they weren't human.
I said they were of a different race.

 

 

 
Provide the Scriptures of which you speak....They are quite a few Scriptures that uses the terms son of man/God
 

Ok, here's one....

 

Quote

 

Ezekiel 2:1-3

1And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee.

2And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me.

3And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day.

 

Here, Ezekiel himself is referred to a "son of man"..which in it's original translation would be "Ben Adam" or "Son of Adam"
 

Unlike the New Testament which suggests only Christ is the "Son of Man".....the Old Testament calls multiple people "son of man" because the term simply mean a descendant of Adam.
Adam being the allegorical first White man.

 

 

 

 

 

One woman breaks the Rule of Male rule.....

We will have to disagree.

 

One or even several occurrences doesn't necessarily end or change the paradigm of an establishment.

Obama being President for 8 years didn't change the fact that White people are the ones primarily running this nation.

[frankster]

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

For me  Humanity is of One ....Race is a social construct - based on political expediency.

 

  

 So, you believe the differences between these two men is a "social construct" and doesn't have a physical and genetic factor?

So since you believe race is a "social construct", you're saying eliminate the "race construct" and no one would be able to tell the difference between them??

I think those two men are of different ethnicities..

  

 

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

What Phenotype is exclusive to "The Caucasian"?

 

The phenotypical GROUP traits of nearly white skin, red/blonde hair, blue/green eyes, weaker bones and muscles.
 

Again, individually these traits can be found among all other races.  But only among Caucasians are they ALL found in a group.

Thus the term "race".

We can have the same Genotype and yet  express a different phenotype....Africans have the widest genotypic variation.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Yes  they do not show blood through skin"Like" Caucasians do.....They are not Caucasians.

Like humans they do show blood when the blush and or bruise from under the skin....like African, Caucasian,Chinese or Indians do - each in their own individual  way.
 

Ok?
Tell me something I DON'T know.

I didn't say they weren't human.
I said they were of a different race.

They are of Different Ethnicities.....Mostly due to environment diet culture and history

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Provide the Scriptures of which you speak....They are quite a few Scriptures that uses the terms son of man/God
 

Ok, here's one....

 

Here, Ezekiel himself is referred to a "son of man"..which in it's original translation would be "Ben Adam" or "Son of Adam"
 

Unlike the New Testament which suggests only Christ is the "Son of Man".....the Old Testament calls multiple people "son of man" because the term simply mean a descendant of Adam.
Adam being the allegorical first White man.

If you are saying that the Hebrew/Jews were white/caucasian....Then how do you explain Moses hands turning white and Miriam turning white

Exodus 2 and Numbers 12

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

One woman breaks the Rule of Male rule.....

We will have to disagree.

 

One or even several occurrences doesn't necessarily end or change the paradigm of an establishment.

Obama being President for 8 years didn't change the fact that White people are the ones primarily running this nation.

Yes but Obama being President change the paradigm that Only White Men can be President.....As Men rule would imply

[Pioneer1]

frankster

I think those two men are of different ethnicities..

 

Ethnicity has to do with CULTURE, not looks or skin color.

 

 

 

 

We can have the same Genotype and yet  express a different phenotype.

 

But not vise-versa.
You CAN'T have a different genotype and express the same phenotype.

 

 

 

They are of Different Ethnicities.....Mostly due to environment diet culture and history

 

True.
But diet, culture, and environment does NOT affect your hair texture, natural (not tanned by the sun) skin color, eye color, and other racial traits.
Those are products of GENETICS.

 

 

 

 

If you are saying that the Hebrew/Jews were white/caucasian....Then how do you explain Moses hands turning white and Miriam turning white

 

1. Moses wasn't a Jew.
According to the Bible he was a Hebrew.
Jews weren't invented until around 600 B.C.

2. I didn't say the HEBREWS were White, I said the Jews and Israelites were.  
Caucasian to be exact, not necessarily "White".

There is a difference in all 3: Hebrews, Israelites, Jews.
Sometimes they overlap, but they still are different.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes but Obama being President change the paradigm that Only White Men can be President.....As Men rule would imply

 

First of all there is no rule or paradigm that said "only White men" could be President.
It wasn't in the Constitution even during slavery.

 

Secondly, the President of the United States is merely a FIGURE HEAD.  He's not a ruler and have very little power to change the course of things in the United States.  Most of that power still resides in the hands of White men.
 

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Secondly, the President of the United States is merely a FIGURE HEAD.  He's not a ruler and have very little power to change the course of things in the United States.  Most of that power still resides in the hands of White men.

You're on fire with facts. 

 

POTUS carries a lot of responsibility but very little power.  Executive orders are limited.  Congress has to approve everything else.

[frankster]

What race/races do the above individuals belong to?

 

17 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster
I think those two men are of different ethnicities..

Ethnicity has to do with CULTURE, not looks or skin color.

Ethnicity has to do with Culture, Environment and diet....and in most cases Skin color  and appearance(phenotype)

 

 

17 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

We can have the same Genotype and yet  express a different phenotype.

 

But not vise-versa.
You CAN'T have a different genotype and express the same phenotype.

As Humans we all share the same or almost identical genes, the differences occur along the continuum of those that are Dominant and those that are Expressed

 

17 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

They are of Different Ethnicities.....Mostly due to environment diet culture and history

 

True.
But diet, culture, and environment does NOT affect your hair texture, natural (not tanned by the sun) skin color, eye color, and other racial traits.
Those are products of GENETICS.

The study of Epigenetics has demonstrated how Culture, Environment and Diet influence and change(turn on/off) Gene Expression especially in terms of Phenotype.

 

17 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

If you are saying that the Hebrew/Jews were white/caucasian....Then how do you explain Moses hands turning white and Miriam turning white

 

1. Moses wasn't a Jew.
According to the Bible he was a Hebrew.
Jews weren't invented until around 600 B.C.

Hence the reason I used the term Hebrew/Jew.....pick your nomenclature.

What was Miriam Hebrew or Israelite or Jew?

If as you say Moses wasn't a Jew...what was Moses ? - Hebrew or Israelite or other?

 

17 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

2. I didn't say the HEBREWS were White, I said the Jews and Israelites were.  
Caucasian to be exact, not necessarily "White".

There is a difference in all 3: Hebrews, Israelites, Jews.
Sometimes they overlap, but they still are different.

The Hebrews were of what Race in your opinion..?

What in your Opinion is the difference between White and Caucasian?

 

17 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Yes but Obama being President change the paradigm that Only White Men can be President.....As Men rule would imply

 

First of all there is no rule or paradigm that said "only White men" could be President.
It wasn't in the Constitution even during slavery.

Paradigm means pattern...and before Obama the paradigm was only white men were President

 

17 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Secondly, the President of the United States is merely a FIGURE HEAD.  He's not a ruler and have very little power to change the course of things in the United States.  Most of that power still resides in the hands of White men.
 

The above has little relevance to what we are discussing....but I will indulge you

 

The Office of the Presidency has the following abilities.....Or Powers

Commander-in-Chief of arguable the most powerful military in the World today...

The ability to convene and adjourn The Congress of arguable the most powerful economy in the world....can Veto  or sign all bills enacted by congress

The ability to nominate  and appoint individuals to some of the very highest offices and departments in the country...

The US President is The Chief Executive Officer of the USA also is Head of State and Head of Government of the USA....That's Real Power - not a figurehead.

 

16 hours ago, ProfD said:

You're on fire with facts. 

 

POTUS carries a lot of responsibility but very little power.  Executive orders are limited.  Congress has to approve everything else.

Responsibility Denotes Control or being in Charge of....Congress is in turn limited by the President's Veto Powers...

The President has a Line Item Veto option couple with Executive Orders gives  the President much flexibility and liberties.

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, frankster said:

Responsibility Denotes Control or being in Charge of....Congress is in turn limited by the President's Veto Powers...

The President has a Line Item Veto option couple with Executive Orders gives  the President much flexibility and liberties.

Sure.  As I wrote, POTUS carries responsibility more than power. 

 

There's a reason Build Back Better has been reduced to Clean Up Some.  

[frankster]

12 minutes ago, ProfD said:

Sure.  As I wrote, POTUS carries responsibility more than power. 

 

There's a reason Build Back Better has been reduced to Clean Up Some.  

You say half empty...I say half full

There is Responsibilities as in an Accountable to someone or thing , or as in Charge of someone or thing.....POTUS Responsibility is one of In Charge Of.

POTUS is in Charge of the  US Power....In turn POTUS is Accountable to Congress for how POTUS uses or exercise this power.

I know of only a few individual who has access to such immense Power....Congress is a body of over 500 individual none of which has that power individually.

[Pioneer1]

frankster

 

 

 

What race/races do the above individuals belong to?

 

When you put them next to each other it's hard to tell because they actually look like the SAME girl but fixed to appear either Black or vise versa.

 

If they're not the same, the pale one looks like an albina and I can't tell her actual race.

 

 

 

 

 

Ethnicity has to do with Culture, Environment and diet....and in most cases Skin color  and appearance(phenotype)

 

You mixing apples and oranges.

Ethnicity is about CULTURE...that's it's primary concern.
The only time skin color comes into play is when you're talking about different ethnicities within the SAME RACE.
What percentage of ethnic groups are of the same race vs how many are multi-racial...that's a different argument all together.
However ethnicity is about CULTURE...not COLOR.

 

 

 

 

 

As Humans we all share the same or almost identical genes, the differences occur along the continuum of those that are Dominant and those that are Expressed

 

ALMOST is the key word.
Hell, according to most scientists humans and monkeys share over 90% of the same genes too.  But we're clearly not the same.

Just because human's share similar DNA...there's enough DNA that we DON'T share with each other that makes huge differences between us.

 

 

 

The study of Epigenetics has demonstrated how Culture, Environment and Diet influence and change(turn on/off) Gene Expression especially in terms of Phenotype.

 

But not in racial allele/traits.
Those remain constant regardless of diet.

A Black man won't turn White no matter how much German culture he adopts...and nor will his children or grandchildren if they continue to mate with other Black people.

The only time the race of his offspring will change is if they mate with a person of another race.
 

 

Hence the reason I used the term Hebrew/Jew.....pick your nomenclature.

What was Miriam Hebrew or Israelite or Jew?

 

If the story of her in the Bible is true...she was the same as Moses, both a Hebrew and Israelite.
However I don't believe the story.

 

 

If as you say Moses wasn't a Jew...what was Moses ? - Hebrew or Israelite or other?

 

As I said before, I don't believe the Biblical story of Moses.
I believe the REAL or historic Moses was a Hebrew from Kemet (ancient Egypt) but not an Israelite.

 

 

 

 

The Hebrews were of what Race in your opinion..?

 

The Hebrews were (and still are) of the African race.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What in your Opinion is the difference between White and Caucasian?

 

White is a color that very few people actually have, especially if they're living.
It's not a very accurate description.

Caucasian is much more accurate because it identities the race of people decended from those of the Caucasus mountains of that same gene.

Not every Caucasian is White in color.
Some of them are tan and quite swarthy for various reasons, but the majority of their genes and ancestry is of that racial background.

 

 

 

 

 

Paradigm means pattern...and before Obama the paradigm was only white men were President

 

But see, that's not what you said at first!
You changed words.
Perhaps the paradigm was that only White men WERE President, but not necessarily that only White men COULD BE President. 
You said the paradigm before Obama was that only White men CAN be...which was false because he wouldn't have been allowed to run if that were the case.

 

 

 

 

The US President is The Chief Executive Officer of the USA also is Head of State and Head of Government of the USA....That's Real Power - not a figurehead.

 

I said the President has LITTLE POWER to change the course of things in the United States.  I didn't say he didn't have ANY power.
He has some, but not enough to be considered a "ruler".
There are checks and balances to his powers in the form of Congress and the so-called "Supreme" Court.

 

 

 

 

Responsibility Denotes Control or being in Charge of....Congress is in turn limited by the President's Veto Powers...

 

Actually "responsibility" simply means the ABILITY TO RESPOND.
IT doesn't mean you're in control or have enough power to be effective; it simple means you are able to give a response.

[Troy]

 

 

On 9/4/2022 at 9:22 AM, Pioneer1 said:

Lately I've been exploring alternative search engines and looking for ones with less of a filter and a broader range than Google.

 

Google is probably the best search engine, you just have to ignore all the ads and be willing to dig many pages deep.

 

My default is Bing, because they pay you to use them.

 

If you are concerned about privacy (and you should be), DuckDuckGo is best.

 

@frankster give up on Pioneer when it comes to the race thing.  He firmly believes so-called Black people and so-called white are different races.  The science does not matter.  

 

 

 

[Pioneer1]

Troy

Science ACKNOWLEDGES the existence of multiple races.

And I can prove it beyond any REASONABLE doubt.

 

[frankster]

23 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

 

 

What race/races do the above individuals belong to?

 

When you put them next to each other it's hard to tell because they actually look like the SAME girl but fixed to appear either Black or vise versa.

 

If they're not the same, the pale one looks like an albina and I can't tell her actual race.

They are both African( of what would be call the black race)...obviously one is black  skinned and the other is white skinned

 

23 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Ethnicity has to do with Culture, Environment and diet....and in most cases Skin color  and appearance(phenotype)

 

You mixing apples and oranges.

Ethnicity is about CULTURE...that's it's primary concern.
The only time skin color comes into play is when you're talking about different ethnicities within the SAME RACE.
What percentage of ethnic groups are of the same race vs how many are multi-racial...that's a different argument all together.
However ethnicity is about CULTURE...not COLOR.

Yes indeed Ethnicity is about Culture....Culture is History and Traditions - Heritage.

 

Diet does affect Skin color.....

Myth or Fact: Eating too many carrots can turn your skin orange.

The surprising truth is that, yes, eating too many carrots can change the color of your skin.

“Carrots can, in fact, cause an orangish yellow skin pigmentation,” says Dr. Lady Dy, a dermatologist with Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge, Ill. “It’s called carotenemia and is often most noticeable on thick skin like palms of your hands or the soles of your feet.”

The orangish yellow discoloration is a result of excess beta-carotene in the blood from consuming foods like carrots, says Dr. Dy.

Other foods that can cause the orangish yellow pigmentation include squash, sweet potatoes, cantaloupe and even dried apricots. All these foods are also high in beta-carotene.

The good news – it’s not toxic and doesn’t cause any other health issues aside from the slight discoloration.

“The skin discoloration is temporary and completely reverses once you change your dietary habits,” says Dr. Dy. 

https://www.ahchealthenews.com/2021/10/29/can-eating-certain-foods-change-color-skin/

 

 

23 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

As Humans we all share the same or almost identical genes, the differences occur along the continuum of those that are Dominant and those that are Expressed

 

ALMOST is the key word.
Hell, according to most scientists humans and monkeys share over 90% of the same genes too.  But we're clearly not the same.

Just because human's share similar DNA...there's enough DNA that we DON'T share with each other that makes huge differences between us.

On a genetic level all humans share  99% of the same genes...The point is we are more alike than we differ

1% difference is not enough to explain the White/caucasian race.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

The study of Epigenetics has demonstrated how Culture, Environment and Diet influence and change(turn on/off) Gene Expression especially in terms of Phenotype.

 

But not in racial allele/traits.
Those remain constant regardless of diet.

A Black man won't turn White no matter how much German culture he adopts...and nor will his children or grandchildren if they continue to mate with other Black people.

The only time the race of his offspring will change is if they mate with a person of another race.

The following is how diet affects gene expression....Environment plays an important role as well

 

Epigenetics is the study of how different biological and environmental signals affect gene expression. Rather than change DNA itself, epigenetic signals can, for example, prompt changes in the number of methyl chemical groups attached to a gene, turning it on or off. A person’s diet is an important source of epigenetic signals, and scientists are now investigating how eating habits modify gene expression in adults and their offspring.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/science-for-life/how-diet-can-change-your-dna/

 

In addition, there is growing evidence that dietary effects, which can alter the expression and control of genes, might even have been a driving force for human evolution. A recent study revealed that the greatest divergence between the genomes of humans and chimpanzees is found among genes that control metabolism and are closely associated with diet (Somel et al, 2008).

The mechanisms that allow the genome to interact with environmental factors, such as diet, are epigenetic changes—a concept first proposed by the British biologist Conrad Waddington (1905–1975) in 1942 to describe the interplay between genes and the environment in determining the phenotype of an organism

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2373379/

23 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Hence the reason I used the term Hebrew/Jew.....pick your nomenclature.

What was Miriam Hebrew or Israelite or Jew?

 

If the story of her in the Bible is true...she was the same as Moses, both a Hebrew and Israelite.
However I don't believe the story.

cool.

 

23 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

If as you say Moses wasn't a Jew...what was Moses ? - Hebrew or Israelite or other?

 

As I said before, I don't believe the Biblical story of Moses.
I believe the REAL or historic Moses was a Hebrew from Kemet (ancient Egypt) but not an Israelite.

I concur....that he was from Khem

And What color was the ancient Egyptians(Khemet)?

 

23 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

The Hebrews were of what Race in your opinion..?

 

The Hebrews were (and still are) of the African race.

We agree

 

23 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

What in your Opinion is the difference between White and Caucasian?

 

White is a color that very few people actually have, especially if they're living.
It's not a very accurate description.

Caucasian is much more accurate because it identities the race of people decended from those of the Caucasus mountains of that same gene.

Not every Caucasian is White in color.
Some of them are tan and quite swarthy for various reasons, but the majority of their genes and ancestry is of that racial background.

If "Not every Caucasian is White in color." Therefore White people do not exist - except as a social construct .....but caucasians do as an Ethnicity.

 

23 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Paradigm means pattern...and before Obama the paradigm was only white men were President

 

But see, that's not what you said at first!
You changed words.
Perhaps the paradigm was that only White men WERE President, but not necessarily that only White men COULD BE President. 
You said the paradigm before Obama was that only White men CAN be...which was false because he wouldn't have been allowed to run if that were the case.

What evidence do you have that a Black man could be president prior to Obama?...So far the Paradigm or Pattern is only Men can be President

 

 

23 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

The US President is The Chief Executive Officer of the USA also is Head of State and Head of Government of the USA....That's Real Power - not a figurehead.

 

I said the President has LITTLE POWER to change the course of things in the United States.  I didn't say he didn't have ANY power.
He has some, but not enough to be considered a "ruler".
There are checks and balances to his powers in the form of Congress and the so-called "Supreme" Court.

I would argue that as President he has much more power than the average US citizen/national....not an absolute ruler

 

23 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Responsibility Denotes Control or being in Charge of....Congress is in turn limited by the President's Veto Powers...

 

Actually "responsibility" simply means the ABILITY TO RESPOND.
IT doesn't mean you're in control or have enough power to be effective; it simple means you are able to give a response.

Yes its most basic and original  meaning is ability to respond...That is no longer it's only meaning

According to the oxford dictionary it also has these other meanings.......The state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone. - The opportunity or ability to act independently and make decisions without authorization.

6 hours ago, Troy said:

 

@frankster give up on Pioneer when it comes to the race thing.  He firmly believes so-called Black people and so-called white are different races.  The science does not matter.  

 

I am beginning to realize that ....but it's fun so I will indulge.

6 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Troy

Science ACKNOWLEDGES the existence of multiple races.

And I can prove it beyond any REASONABLE doubt.

 

Then go ahead...I will be learning something new

[Troy]

11 hours ago, frankster said:

...but it's fun so I will indulge.

 

LOL!

[Pioneer1]

frankster

 

They are both African( of what would be call the black race)...obviously one is black  skinned and the other is white skinned

 

Well there are atleast 2 definitions of the word "African".....

 

One (that you probably won't accept) is the RACIAL definition which identifies those with dark skin and kinky hair who come from or who's ancestors come from sub-Saharan Africa
Commonly refered to as "Black" or "Negro".

 

The second definition is ANYONE of ANY RACE who was born on the continent whether they be Black, White, Arab, Berber, ect...

When you say the blonde woman in that picture is an "African" do you mean she's a "White" woman born in some African country or do you mean she's an albina from two Black parents?

 

 

 

Yes indeed Ethnicity is about Culture....Culture is History and Traditions - Heritage.

 

Diet does affect Skin color.....

Myth or Fact: Eating too many carrots can turn your skin orange.

The surprising truth is that, yes, eating too many carrots can change the color of your skin.

“Carrots can, in fact, cause an orangish yellow skin pigmentation,” says Dr. Lady Dy, a dermatologist with Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge, Ill. “It’s called carotenemia and is often most noticeable on thick skin like palms of your hands or the soles of your feet.”

The orangish yellow discoloration is a result of excess beta-carotene in the blood from consuming foods like carrots, says Dr. Dy.

Other foods that can cause the orangish yellow pigmentation include squash, sweet potatoes, cantaloupe and even dried apricots. All these foods are also high in beta-carotene.

The good news – it’s not toxic and doesn’t cause any other health issues aside from the slight discoloration.

“The skin discoloration is temporary and completely reverses once you change your dietary habits,” says Dr. Dy. 

https://www.ahchealthenews.com/2021/10/29/can-eating-certain-foods-change-color-skin/

 

Ok....????
I don't dispute what you're saying in THIS context.
But it's talking about TEMPORARY changes in a human's skin color do to medical issues, not GENETIC changes that people are BORN with.

Hell, TATOOS affect your skin color too...but they don't change your race, lol

 

A member of the Caucasian race and African race can eat the exact same foods for a lifetime and their skin color and hair texture will not change or become similar, would you not agree?

 

 

 

 

On a genetic level all humans share  99% of the same genes...The point is we are more alike than we differ

1% difference is not enough to explain the White/caucasian race.

 

What you're talking about is BESIDE the point.
You're FOCUSING on the similarities and trying to make the differences "irrelevant".
But the differences exist none the less no matter how small of a percentage they are.

 

There is less than 10% difference between men and women...but the difference between a male body and female body are HUGE ENOUGH.
Infact, they are so huge that women need their own doctors and medicine for their own needs separate from men!

 

I'd argue that AfroAmericans need OUR own specialist doctors and hospitals because OUR bodies and dietary needs tend to be different than Whites and other races.

 

 

 

 

I concur....that he was from Khem

And What color was the ancient Egyptians(Khemet)?

 

They were a mixture of black and dark brown in skin tone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If "Not every Caucasian is White in color." Therefore White people do not exist - except as a social construct .....but caucasians do as an Ethnicity.

First of all, you're contradicting yourself to say they don't exist EXCEPT as a "such and such".

 

Either they exist or they don't.

White people/Caucasians clearly exist and have been ruling much of the world for over 500 years....whether you want to call them a "social construct" or not.

Infact, social constructs EXIST.
.....just like a building is a constructed.
That which is CONSTRUCTED........EXISTS, therefor it is real.
 

Second, yes...Caucasian is also an ethnicity too because in Russia members of various "minority" tribes from the Caucasus mountains like Chechnya are also called "Caucasians"...lol.

 

 

 

 

What evidence do you have that a Black man could be president prior to Obama?

 

Some scholars say we HAD Black Presidents in the United States already, but I'm not gonna argue it one way or the other.
 

A more direct answer to your question is that the Constitution DID NOT PREVENT IT.  
As long as you're a 35 years or older born citizen with no felonies, you "could" run for and become President.
Race or sex isn't a factor.

 

 

 

...So far the Paradigm or Pattern is only Men can be President

 

No, the paradigm is that men ONLY HAVE been President, not ONLY CAN be President.

We can have a female President too.
And probably will.

 

 

 

 

 

I would argue that as President he has much more power than the average US citizen/national....not an absolute ruler

Then you'd be arguing by yourself then....lol.
I don't know of anyone who disagrees with this.

 

 

 

 

I am beginning to realize that ....but it's fun so I will indulge.

 

....as if either one of you have presented ABSOLUTE PROOF of your "only one race exists" position.

Just because you two DENY the obvious so strongly, doesn't make it a fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then go ahead...I will be learning something new

 

You won't learn it if you don't accept it.

I can present all of the evidence and proof in the world, but if your mind is set on "there is only one race" and refuse to believe multiple races exist...you'll either try to discredit that proof or just find something else to counter it.

 

I've presented Troy with both evidence and proof and like a squirrel he's ducked and dodged and bounced around my presentations and outright ignored them to stick to his position.
So I've given up on trying to convince him, lol

But for you.........

Here are excerpts from an article from the New England Journal of Medicine which we can all agree is a SCIENTIFIC BASED publication.
It's a well known journal quoted and respected by most doctors and scientists.:

Quote

 

The Emergence of the Racial Disparity in U.S. Breast-Cancer Mortality

 

The emergence of the racial disparity in breast-cancer mortality can therefore be attributed to a calendar-period effect rather than a birth-cohort effect, which means that the introduction of new medical interventions was most likely the precipitating factor. In the 1980s, two medical interventions were widely implemented in the United States for breast-cancer management — mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy — and racial disparities in access to these interventions, as well as in their effects, probably precipitated the divergence in mortality.² Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decision making. In the 1980s, for example, mammography-screening rates were substantially lower among Black women than among White women, although the rates are now similar.²

 

 

What triggered the divergence in breast-cancer mortality according to race in the 1980s? Age–period–cohort (APC) models provide important clues, since they can be used to distinguish among changes in mortality that are based on age at death, year of death (calendar period), or year of birth (birth cohort).²

 

 The Emergence of the Racial Disparity in U.S. Breast-Cancer Mortality | NEJM

 

 

Here's a scientific journal that CLEARLY acknowledges that not only do different races exist, but identifies those races as well.

And I can provide many many more if this one is not enough....but it should be because it's clear PROOF.
Usually you don't need "proofs" (plural) to support and argument....you only need proof (singular).

 

The real question is will you accept this, and move on.....or do like Troy and either ignore it or read the entire article 50 times and look for holes to poke in it or just find another article that declares race a "social construct".

[frankster]

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

They are both African( of what would be call the black race)...obviously one is black  skinned and the other is white skinned

 

Well there are atleast 2 definitions of the word "African".....

 

One (that you probably won't accept) is the RACIAL definition which identifies those with dark skin and kinky hair who come from or who's ancestors come from sub-Saharan Africa
Commonly refered to as "Black" or "Negro".

 

The second definition is ANYONE of ANY RACE who was born on the continent whether they be Black, White, Arab, Berber, ect...

When you say the blonde woman in that picture is an "African" do you mean she's a "White" woman born in some African country or do you mean she's an albina from two Black parents?

Her Parents are Black  African.....Belonging to One or more of the Ethnic groups Native to Africa.

Being born on the Continent does not necessarily make you African....One must also belong to one of the ethnicities native or indigenous to Africa.

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Yes indeed Ethnicity is about Culture....Culture is History and Traditions - Heritage.

 

Diet does affect Skin color.....

Myth or Fact: Eating too many carrots can turn your skin orange.

The surprising truth is that, yes, eating too many carrots can change the color of your skin.

“Carrots can, in fact, cause an orangish yellow skin pigmentation,” says Dr. Lady Dy, a dermatologist with Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge, Ill. “It’s called carotenemia and is often most noticeable on thick skin like palms of your hands or the soles of your feet.”

The orangish yellow discoloration is a result of excess beta-carotene in the blood from consuming foods like carrots, says Dr. Dy.

Other foods that can cause the orangish yellow pigmentation include squash, sweet potatoes, cantaloupe and even dried apricots. All these foods are also high in beta-carotene.

The good news – it’s not toxic and doesn’t cause any other health issues aside from the slight discoloration.

“The skin discoloration is temporary and completely reverses once you change your dietary habits,” says Dr. Dy. 

https://www.ahchealthenews.com/2021/10/29/can-eating-certain-foods-change-color-skin/

 

Ok....????
I don't dispute what you're saying in THIS context.
But it's talking about TEMPORARY changes in a human's skin color do to medical issues, not GENETIC changes that people are BORN with.

Hell, TATOOS affect your skin color too...but they don't change your race, lol

 

A member of the Caucasian race and African race can eat the exact same foods for a lifetime and their skin color and hair texture will not change or become similar, would you not agree?

Its is only temporary if you discontinue eating those foods " The skin discoloration is temporary and completely reverses once you change your dietary habits"" 

Diet is a part of Culture..

Most of The changes that are easily recognizable does not happen in a lifetime.....While others like Complexion starts almost immediately.

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

On a genetic level all humans share  99% of the same genes...The point is we are more alike than we differ

1% difference is not enough to explain the White/caucasian race.

 

What you're talking about is BESIDE the point.
You're FOCUSING on the similarities and trying to make the differences "irrelevant".
But the differences exist none the less no matter how small of a percentage they are.

The Similarities and Dissimilarities are Equally relevant and if we more alike than dissimilar....No two human beings are the same not even identical twins.

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

There is less than 10% difference between men and women...but the difference between a male body and female body are HUGE ENOUGH.
Infact, they are so huge that women need their own doctors and medicine for their own needs separate from men!

 

I'd argue that AfroAmericans need OUR own specialist doctors and hospitals because OUR bodies and dietary needs tend to be different than Whites and other races.

Are you now saying that men and women belong to different races as a result of these sexual differences?

Sexual differences is common among all ethnic groupings and species....They all share the same genes - differences is in Gene Expression.

 

Yes we do need specialist Doctors only because we are Culturally different and receive disparate treatment as a result of racism.

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I concur....that he was from Khem

And What color was the ancient Egyptians(Khemet)?

 

They were a mixture of black and dark brown in skin tone.

Cool....we are in accord.

Is The brown color natural or a result of caucasian or arabic admixture?

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

If "Not every Caucasian is White in color." Therefore White people do not exist - except as a social construct .....but caucasians do as an Ethnicity.

 

First of all, you're contradicting yourself to say they don't exist EXCEPT as a "such and such".

Either they exist or they don't.

White people/Caucasians clearly exist and have been ruling much of the world for over 500 years....whether you want to call them a "social construct" or not.

Social Construct are real because we give them meaning and behave according to there dictates.... fashion etc

 

Caucasians exist....white people is a Social Construct of the late 16 century.

A Social Construct has no Objective Reality....Biological and Genetically white people do not exist.....Caucasians do exist.

 

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Infact, social constructs EXIST.
.....just like a building is a constructed.
That which is CONSTRUCTED........EXISTS, therefor it is real.
 

Second, yes...Caucasian is also an ethnicity too because in Russia members of various "minority" tribes from the Caucasus mountains like Chechnya are also called "Caucasians"...lol.

Money is Real.....We Construct money and give it Meaning - Money  it does not Exist .

What we often refer to as Money is actually.....Paper and ink or some Mineral  with engravings - Paper and mineral Exist

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

What evidence do you have that a Black man could be president prior to Obama?

 

Some scholars say we HAD Black Presidents in the United States already, but I'm not gonna argue it one way or the other.
 

A more direct answer to your question is that the Constitution DID NOT PREVENT IT.  
As long as you're a 35 years or older born citizen with no felonies, you "could" run for and become President.
Race or sex isn't a factor.

I have heard or read of those Black presidents too...

Yes...the constitution may not prevent .....the Pattern or Paradigm has shown different.

Yes the Constitution did not prevent it yet there was none..... why?

 

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

..So far the Paradigm or Pattern is only Men can be President

No, the paradigm is that men ONLY HAVE been President, not ONLY CAN be President.

Same difference...

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

We can have a female President too.
And probably will.

Of Course we can....

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I would argue that as President he has much more power than the average US citizen/national....not an absolute ruler

Then you'd be arguing by yourself then....lol.
I don't know of anyone who disagrees with this.

Then why say he has "little Power" if the President more power than the average person?

POTUS is often referred to as the Most Powerful Man in the Free world..

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I am beginning to realize that ....but it's fun so I will indulge.

 

....as if either one of you have presented ABSOLUTE PROOF of your "only one race exists" position.

Just because you two DENY the obvious so strongly, doesn't make it a fact.

I am not here to convince you....I am here to share and exchange info in an atmosphere of fun - and perchance learn something.

 

5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Then go ahead...I will be learning something new

 

You won't learn it if you don't accept it.

I can present all of the evidence and proof in the world, but if your mind is set on "there is only one race" and refuse to believe multiple races exist...you'll either try to discredit that proof or just find something else to counter it.

 

I've presented Troy with both evidence and proof and like a squirrel he's ducked and dodged and bounced around my presentations and outright ignored them to stick to his position.
So I've given up on trying to convince him, lol

But for you.........

Here are excerpts from an article from the New England Journal of Medicine which we can all agree is a SCIENTIFIC BASED publication.
It's a well known journal quoted and respected by most doctors and scientists.:

 

Here's a scientific journal that CLEARLY acknowledges that not only do different races exist, but identifies those races as well.

And I can provide many many more if this one is not enough....but it should be because it's clear PROOF.
Usually you don't need "proofs" (plural) to support and argument....you only need proof (singular).

 

The real question is will you accept this, and move on.....or do like Troy and either ignore it or read the entire article 50 times and look for holes to poke in it or just find another article that declares race a "social construct".

I read it once and only what you posted.

If you read carefully  below an excerpt of your proof you will realize they are not stating race as the cause of the disparities .....but Racism  - without having to use the word Racism

 

In a nutshell without all the scientific jargon.

Black women Lack of insurance  led to a denial of access to new medical intervention which result in inadequate therapy causing more death among  black women.

 

 

The emergence of the racial disparity in breast-cancer mortality can therefore be attributed to a calendar-period effect rather than a birth-cohort effect, which means that the introduction of new medical interventions was most likely the precipitating factor.  In the 1980s, two medical interventions were widely implemented in the United States for breast-cancer management — mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy — and racial disparities in access to these interventions, as well as in their effects, probably precipitated the divergence in mortality.² Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decision making. 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2200244?query=race_and_medicine

 

 

 

[Pioneer1]

frankster

 

Her Parents are Black  African.....Belonging to One or more of the Ethnic groups Native to Africa.

 

I'm curious.....
Do you know her personally?
How do you KNOW her parents are Black?
And is she an albina?

 

 

 

 

Being born on the Continent does not necessarily make you African....One must also belong to one of the ethnicities native or indigenous to Africa.

 

Actually being born a CITIZEN in one of the nations of Africa does make you African by definition. 
It's a definition I don't agree with, but it's definition none the less.

 

 

 

 

 

The Similarities and Dissimilarities are Equally relevant and if we more alike than dissimilar....No two human beings are the same not even identical twins.

 

Agreed.
So what's the argument?

 

 

 

 

Are you now saying that men and women belong to different races as a result of these sexual differences?

 

Not now...not ever.
My point is small percentages of genes and dna can still produce major and obvious difference...so they shouldn't be overlooked.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes we do need specialist Doctors only because we are Culturally different and receive disparate treatment as a result of racism.

 

That's only ONE reason why.
There are others.

 

 

 

 

Is The brown color natural or a result of caucasian or arabic admixture?

 

When I say "ancient"...I'm talking BEFORE the existence of Caucasians.

So no.

Some Black folks with no Caucasian or any other racial mixture are naturally dark brown and even medium brown.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social Construct are real because 

 

 HALT!

Might as well stop right there...lol

Now that you acknowledge that social constructs are REAL...you'd have to acknowledge that race and different races are real, regardless as to the reasons they were "constructed".

 

 

 

 

 

Caucasians exist....white people is a Social Construct of the late 16 century.

 

White people is just another TERM for Caucasian.
It's an INACCURATE term, which is why I don't like using it...but a term that means the same thing none the less.

 

 

 

 

 

A Social Construct has no Objective Reality

 

That's like saying music or a great novel has no "objective reality".
If it exists...it's real.

 

 

 

 

 

Money is Real.....We Construct money and give it Meaning - Money  it does not Exist .

 

That's ridiculous.
If it didn't exist....you wouldn't even THINK about it, let alone talk about it.
It's real and it exists.

 

 

 

What we often refer to as Money is actually.....Paper and ink or some Mineral  with engravings - Paper and mineral Exist

 

True.
But money has value.
It's VERY real and it definitely exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes the Constitution did not prevent it yet there was none..... why?

 

Because of racism.

 

 

 

Same difference...

 

It's not the same.

There's a difference between a person who ONLY HAS lived in an apartment in their life and ONLY CAN live in an apartment instead of a house.

 

ONLY HAVE has to do with experience
ONLY HAS has to do with ability

 

 

 

 

 

Then why say he has "little Power" if the President more power than the average person?

 

Because LITTLE is more than NONE.....lol.

POTUS is often referred to as the Most Powerful Man in the Free world..

 

Santa Claus is often referred to as the jolly fat man who slides down chimneys bringing gifts...lol.

Is either true?

 

 

 

 

I am not here to convince you....I am here to share and exchange info in an atmosphere of fun - and perchance learn something.

 

That sounds a little like Del..lol.
Interesting concept.

I actually DO try to convince some people.
If I see people in error and with harmful beliefs, I try to help them by offering the truth.

 

 

 

 

I read it once and only what you posted.

If you read carefully  below an excerpt of your proof you will realize they are not stating race as the cause of the disparities .....but Racism  - without having to use the word Racism

 

In a nutshell without all the scientific jargon.

Black women Lack of insurance  led to a denial of access to new medical intervention which result in inadequate therapy causing more death among  black women.

 
The point is I said that science ACKNOWLEDGES the difference between the races and I have proven that.

 

[ProfD]

21 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Actually being born a CITIZEN in one of the nations of Africa does make you African by definition. 
It's a definition I don't agree with, but it's definition none the less.

There are definitely millions of White South Afrikkans who were born and raised there over several generations. 

[frankster]

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

 

Her Parents are Black  African.....Belonging to One or more of the Ethnic groups Native to Africa.

 

I'm curious.....
Do you know her personally?
How do you KNOW her parents are Black?
And is she an albina?

She is an Albino...I do not know her.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Being born on the Continent does not necessarily make you African....One must also belong to one of the ethnicities native or indigenous to Africa.

 

Actually being born a CITIZEN in one of the nations of Africa does make you African by definition. 
It's a definition I don't agree with, but it's definition none the less.

I never said anything about "citizen".... it seems we agree

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The Similarities and Dissimilarities are Equally relevant and if we more alike than dissimilar....No two human beings are the same not even identical twins.

 

Agreed.
So what's the argument?

You are making it seems like the differences between us is tantamount to a whole different race.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Are you now saying that men and women belong to different races as a result of these sexual differences?

 

Not now...not ever.
My point is small percentages of genes and dna can still produce major and obvious difference...so they shouldn't be overlooked.

No one is overlooking those differences but they do not equal a breed or a distinguishable  race within the human family.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Yes we do need specialist Doctors only because we are Culturally different and receive disparate treatment as a result of racism.

 

That's only ONE reason why.
There are others.

Please name the others?

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Is The brown color natural or a result of caucasian or arabic admixture?

 

When I say "ancient"...I'm talking BEFORE the existence of Caucasians.

So no.

Some Black folks with no Caucasian or any other racial mixture are naturally dark brown and even medium brown.

Cool we agree.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Social Construct are real because 

 

 HALT!

Might as well stop right there...lol

Now that you acknowledge that social constructs are REAL...you'd have to acknowledge that race and different races are real, regardless as to the reasons they were "constructed".

Real as in rules made up on how certain individuals that fit a specific criteria should be treated.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Caucasians exist....white people is a Social Construct of the late 16 century.

 

White people is just another TERM for Caucasian.
It's an INACCURATE term, which is why I don't like using it...but a term that means the same thing none the less.

White people and caucasian are used as interchangeable terms, but they are differences between both words as to meaning and history.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

A Social Construct has no Objective Reality

 

That's like saying music or a great novel has no "objective reality".
If it exists...it's real.

No...Not the same

Social Construct is an idea that people accept ....like Gender

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

Money is Real.....We Construct money and give it Meaning - Money  it does not Exist .

 

That's ridiculous.
If it didn't exist....you wouldn't even THINK about it, let alone talk about it.
It's real and it exists.

Money is Fiat....Social Construct by decree

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

What we often refer to as Money is actually.....Paper and ink or some Mineral  with engravings - Paper and mineral Exist

 

True.
But money has value.
It's VERY real and it definitely exists.

We give it Value and Meaning....in and of itself its just Paper with colorings

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Yes the Constitution did not prevent it yet there was none..... why?

 

Because of racism.

The Paradigm.

And in the case of women?.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Same difference...

 

It's not the same.

There's a difference between a person who ONLY HAS lived in an apartment in their life and ONLY CAN live in an apartment instead of a house.

Until the they change or break the paradigm....the pattern remains

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

ONLY HAVE has to do with experience
ONLY HAS has to do with ability

Only has to do with Exclusivity.....

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Then why say he has "little Power" if the President more power than the average person?

 

Because LITTLE is more than NONE.....lol.

When comparing little to none....little becomes a lot.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

POTUS is often referred to as the Most Powerful Man in the Free world..

 

Santa Claus is often referred to as the jolly fat man who slides down chimneys bringing gifts...lol.

Is either true?

Yes one is true....POTUS is one of the World's most Powerful Man.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I am not here to convince you....I am here to share and exchange info in an atmosphere of fun - and perchance learn something.

 

That sounds a little like Del..lol.
Interesting concept.

I actually DO try to convince some people.
If I see people in error and with harmful beliefs, I try to help them by offering the truth.

No I do not try to convince, I have found that leads to entrenchment and egoism

I share and value what is shared.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

 

 

 

 I read it once and only what you posted.

If you read carefully  below an excerpt of your proof you will realize they are not stating race as the cause of the disparities .....but Racism  - without having to use the word Racism

 

In a nutshell without all the scientific jargon.

Black women Lack of insurance  led to a denial of access to new medical intervention which result in inadequate therapy causing more death among  black women.

 
The point is I said that science ACKNOWLEDGES the difference between the races and I have proven that.

 

No you have not....you cannot even delude yourself - the facts are there and you know.

 

I get inferior treatment....because I am black

You get superior treatment....because you are white

I remain sick and you get better that means we are of different races.....it only proves Racism

The science told you the cause of the differences was because of access to new and improved treatment was denied to black women.

 

 

I see you grow tired of this discourse, I enjoyed it immensely and look forward to us sharing again in the future....it was fun my brother, You made me laugh many at times...maybe next time we should be more respectful of the thread starter and stay on topic and have our discourse by opening a new thread.

One Love...

  

 

Refugee Diaries at Middlebury - Meron Benti

[Pioneer1]

frankster

 

 

She is an Albino...I do not know her.

 

I figured that.
Albinos don't count as "races" because they are mutations.
 

They aren't constant....an Albino doesn't necessarily produce another Albino.

White people produce other White people.


 

 

I never said anything about "citizen".... it seems we agree

 

That's good

 

 

 

 

No one is overlooking those differences but they do not equal a breed or a distinguishable  race within the human family.

 

If those genes are strong enough to produce different skin colors, eye colors, and hair textures...I'd say they DO produce physical differences that are distiguishable enough to qualify as racial differences with humanity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please name the others?

 

Black people in northern climates tend to lack vitamin D in comparison with ligher races.

Black people also tend to be more lactose intolerant as adults while White people tend not to be.

Those are just two examples but there are a host of medical differences between the races.
Scientists KNOW this...even if the media and educational system wants to pump this "we're all the same" nonsense to put Negroes to sleep and make US think that everybody is the same.
 

White folks KNOW they aren't like you....whether you want to believe "we're all the same" or not.

 

 

 

 

Real as in rules made up 

Again....you can STOP RIGHT THERE, lol.

 

Real as in "made up" means it was constructed....so it exists.

It's real.
It exists.
It BE's.

In other words, racial differences are real and exist whether you AGREE with them or not.

 

 

 

 

No...Not the same

 

Social Construct is an idea that people accept ....like Gender
on how certain individuals that fit a specific criteria should be treated.

 

I agree.
However just because they are CONCEPTS...doesn't mean they aren't REAL.

Sadness is a concept...and real.
Courtesy is a concept...and real.

 

 

 

 

 

Money is Fiat....Social Construct by decree

 

True....but it exists and is valuable.
The value is constructed, but it's real none the less.

 

A powerful man is a powerful man whether his power is natural, comes from steroids, or comes from consuming psycho-drugs affecting his nervous system.

Money is valuable REGARDLESS as to what is giving that money value..

As long as your money has purchasing power, it's valuable.

 

 

 

 

 

We give it Value and Meaning.

Again, regardless as to whether WE give it value or nature gave it value....it HAS value.

 

 

 

No you have not....you cannot even delude yourself - the facts are there and you know.

 

I get inferior treatment....because I am black

You get superior treatment....because you are white

I remain sick and you get better that means we are of different races.....it only proves Racism

The science told you the cause of the differences was because of access to new and improved treatment was denied to black women.

 
How can you deny something you're actually quoting and acknowledging inside your quotes and assertion?

Your argument was that different races DON'T exist.
I showed you how science says they do.
I've proven my point.
No need to "explain" the article to me because the only point I was trying to make was that scientists recognize multiple races.

 

 

 

 

 

I see you grow tired of this discourse, I enjoyed it immensely and look forward to us sharing again in the future....it was fun my brother, You made me laugh many at times...maybe next time we should be more respectful of the thread starter and stay on topic and have our discourse by opening a new thread.

One Love...

 

Actually I haven't grown tired of it.
Rather, I have and am enjoying it.
It's actually the allegory thread that I've grown a little tired of because the points I'm making are becoming redundant as you refuse to acknowledge them and keep going in circles.
But this one....we make more progress.
However if you want to bow out, then do what you must do my brutha....peace.
 

[frankster]

On 9/14/2022 at 5:44 PM, Pioneer1 said:

frankster

She is an Albino...I do not know her.

 

I figured that.
Albinos don't count as "races" because they are mutations.
 

They aren't constant....an Albino doesn't necessarily produce another Albino.

White people produce other White people.

Yes....Albinos are a result of a genetic Mutations..

In Your theory what is the cause of the white race since it's not a mutation?

You do know we have  white albinos....who are of white people and suffer the same mutations as blacks.

On 9/14/2022 at 5:44 PM, Pioneer1 said:

I never said anything about "citizen".... it seems we agree

 

That's good

No one is overlooking those differences but they do not equal a breed or a distinguishable  race within the human family.

 

If those genes are strong enough to produce different skin colors, eye colors, and hair textures...I'd say they DO produce physical differences that are distiguishable enough to qualify as racial differences with humanity.

Both white and black people have melanin, the gene that controls for skin color....In Reality we humans are all shade of brown

 

 

On 9/14/2022 at 5:44 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Please name the others?

 

Black people in northern climates tend to lack vitamin D in comparison with ligher races.

Black people also tend to be more lactose intolerant as adults while White people tend not to be.

Those are just two examples but there are a host of medical differences between the races.
Scientists KNOW this...even if the media and educational system wants to pump this "we're all the same" nonsense to put Negroes to sleep and make US think that everybody is the same.
 

White folks KNOW they aren't like you....whether you want to believe "we're all the same" or not.

Expose those vitamin D deficient Blacks to enough Sunshine and the Deficiency disappears.....Milk is dietary and we spoke of the role of diet in culture.

 

On 9/14/2022 at 5:44 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Real as in rules made up 

Again....you can STOP RIGHT THERE, lol.

 

Real as in "made up" means it was constructed....so it exists.

It's real.
It exists.
It BE's.

In other words, racial differences are real and exist whether you AGREE with them or not.

Socially Agreed upon, made up  as a Rule....Hence it is a Social Construct.

Do you know what a Social Construct is?

 

On 9/14/2022 at 5:44 PM, Pioneer1 said:

No...Not the same

 

Social Construct is an idea that people accept ....like Gender
on how certain individuals that fit a specific criteria should be treated.

 

I agree.
However just because they are CONCEPTS...doesn't mean they aren't REAL.

Sadness is a concept...and real.
Courtesy is a concept...and real.

Sadness is not a concept it is an Emotion.

Courtesy is a Social Construct

 

On 9/14/2022 at 5:44 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Money is Fiat....Social Construct by decree

 

True....but it exists and is valuable.
The value is constructed, but it's real none the less.

 

A powerful man is a powerful man whether his power is natural, comes from steroids, or comes from consuming psycho-drugs affecting his nervous system.

Money is valuable REGARDLESS as to what is giving that money value..

As long as your money has purchasing power, it's valuable.

Money is real and valuable....we give it reality and value...The Value and Reality is purely Social

Most money we use Exist as ink on  Paper and bits of mineral...

The drug is not Socially Construct  - It's Chemically constructed - to affect his biological system.

 

 

On 9/14/2022 at 5:44 PM, Pioneer1 said:

We give it Value and Meaning.

Again, regardless as to whether WE give it value or nature gave it value....it HAS value.

It has value and meaning only in the context of a society

 

 

On 9/14/2022 at 5:44 PM, Pioneer1 said:

No you have not....you cannot even delude yourself - the facts are there and you know.

 

I get inferior treatment....because I am black

You get superior treatment....because you are white

I remain sick and you get better that means we are of different races.....it only proves Racism

The science told you the cause of the differences was because of access to new and improved treatment was denied to black women.

 
How can you deny something you're actually quoting and acknowledging inside your quotes and assertion?

Your argument was that different races DON'T exist.
I showed you how science says they do.
I've proven my point.
No need to "explain" the article to me because the only point I was trying to make was that scientists recognize multiple races.

The Article did not prove any such thing.....

Your ability to read and understand is now being drawn into question.

 

On 9/14/2022 at 5:44 PM, Pioneer1 said:

I see you grow tired of this discourse, I enjoyed it immensely and look forward to us sharing again in the future....it was fun my brother, You made me laugh many at times...maybe next time we should be more respectful of the thread starter and stay on topic and have our discourse by opening a new thread.

One Love...

 

Actually I haven't grown tired of it.
Rather, I have and am enjoying it.
It's actually the allegory thread that I've grown a little tired of because the points I'm making are becoming redundant as you refuse to acknowledge them and keep going in circles.
But this one....we make more progress.
However if you want to bow out, then do what you must do my brutha....peace.
 

No I am not tired of either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10:18 / 10:37

 

 

 

 

 

What does social construction really mean?