Re. brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Fri Oct 11 11:29:12 EST 2002


"Jd" <JDay123 at BellSouth.com> wrote in message
news:3da5a8e1.9381193 at news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote:
>
> >>JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>
> >>You guys are arguing that there is no scientific basis for defining
> >>races and now here you are trying to deceptively sidestep the issue.
> >
> >Because in fact there is none.  The laws attempt to do so based on
> >parentage, but parentage is often lied about, and science isn't
> >generally used to check.  Furthermore, parentage presumes that one can
> >determine the race of the parent, which is the same problem
> >recursively.  There is no way to determine the race of someone even
> >legally without assuming the race of someone else has already been
> >determined.
>
> The fact that YOU say "that there is none" (scientific basis) means
> that YOU can't argue race scientifically just as you can't argue
> religion scientifically if you say "there is no proof" . Therefore
> science is basically irrelevant to the point of being useless with
> reguards to 2 of the most important issues of today if you hold to
> your view. I challenge your view.
>
> With respect to laws being based on parentage, well, that's not
> true. One of the first Laws (if not the very first) addressing the
> race question was the 15th Amendment to the Constitution which uses
> both terms "race" and "color" with respect to voting rights. It was
> ratified Feb. 3, 1870.
>
> Here it is:
>
> Amendment 15, Section 1. "The right of citizens of the United States
> to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by
> any State on account of race, color or previous condition of
> servitude."
>
> Section 2 shows that Congress is empowered to create laws with
> respect to this Amendment.
>
> Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
> appropriate legislation.
>
> "Race" is associated with "color" in the U.S. Constitution, Bob.
>
> In fact, bills from the 107th Congress show that "race" is used in
> conjuction with terms like "nationality" and "minorities" and they
> show that lawmakers use findings of science in their efforts to pass
> laws dealing with "race".
>
> Here are some examples....
>
> [H.RES.398.EH] Whereas fragile X is the most common inherited cause
> of mental retardation, affecting people of every race, income level,
> and nationality; </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:18:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>
>
> [H.CON.RES.388.ENR] Whereas in 2000, the Surgeon General of the
> Public Health Service announced as a goal the elimination by 2010 of
> health disparities experienced by racial and ethnic minorities in
> health... </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:27:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>
>
> [S.RES.151.IS] Expressing the sense of the Senate that the World
> Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and
> Related Intolerance presents a unique opportunity to address
> global... </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:37:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>
>
> >>Do you not understand how the rule of law works in America? It has
> >>to do with normal folks electing leaders, not clones bowing to the
> >>whims of wizards.
> >
> >None of which has ANYTHING to do with science, which couldn't care
> >less how the law works in America.  Science is not "politically
> >correct", and it is international.
>
> My findings above prove you wrong Bob.  That is unless Scientists
> are even more ignorant than I thought and have no clue whatsoever
> than Law makers are looking over their shoulder and even funding
> their research.  Not only that, but now you're telling me that this
> ignorance has reached global proportions.
>
> Lets face it Bob, you're blowing smoke unless you truly can't
> distinguish the difference between your a$$ and a hole in the
> ground.
>
> There are good scientists, and there are wizards.  I think we need
> Christians to vote for leaders which know the difference.
>
> Jd
>

Well said, Jd.

We really must accept that when jews (and "liberals" and other muds [read:
mongrels]) claim that women are more intelligent than men, that they
actually believe it:  because in their communities, it seems to be the case.
You have to REALLY be STUPID to believe that government and science are
incapable of defining races which were EASILY defined, documented, and
proven by Israelites thosands of years ago, and repeated by our Christian
Founding Forefathers centuries ago.

>From the perspective of a mud or "liberal" or jew like lojbab, it probably
is impossible to even comprehend the concept of race, but Thomas Jefferson
had no trouble identifying who the Indians were and KILLING them before they
killed any more Whites.

But it took more than mere STUPIDITY to get to this miserable point:  it
took some serious intentional dumbing down in our "public schools", and
constant, chronic dumbing down in the "newsmedia", to REALLY make them this
STUPID.

Is it even possible to get STUPIDER than this?  I don't think so.

John Knight





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list