brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
lojbab at lojban.org
Wed Sep 18 20:20:21 EST 2002
johnknight at usa.com (John Knight) wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message news:<s8kfou4terj443sp0q2e7beab4d50bkskd at 4ax.com>...
>> It means "a race (as of the same habit)", thereby pointing out WHICH
>> definition of "race" applies: the one pertaining to a people with
>> common habits or customs. It does NOT mean "genetic race", and ethnos
>> has NOTHING to do with genetics. That, as you noted, is "genos"
>The standard definitions of the word "ethnos" INCLUDE all of these
>definitions of race, plus "people", "nation", "gentile", and
>"heathen". These usages are inclusive, not exclusive.
You are a nincompoop and have no idea what you are talking about.
>You have no way of knowing when an "ethnic group" EXCLUDES a race of
>some kind, and in fact you probably can't even cite an example of an
>"ethnic group" which isn't defined by RACE.
Americans (who include lots of your "muds" and "Asiatics" and blacks).
The British, who include descendants of the Anglos and Saxons, the
Danes, various Celts, and perhaps some more primitive group that
preceded the Celts.
Brazilians who are descended from all manner of native Indian tribes,
a large number of blacks, and Portuguese (plus maybe a random German
Nazi or two).
>Israelites are a RACE
>because they are all descendants of Jacob, jews are a race because
>they're presumbaly all descendants of Jehudi,
But they aren't all descendants of Jehudi.
>Asians are a race because they all have a common ancestor,
But there is no particular reason that they are. Linguistically,
Hindi is a Indo-European language. The Ainu of northern Japan are
"white". A significant number of Europeans have Asian blood because
of Atilla and all the other hordes from Asia that swept into Europe.
The world is full of mongrels.
>Arabs are a race because they're all descendants of Ishmael.
>> >> Heritage means history more than it does genetics - DNA testing has
>> >> been around for a couple of decades, but historically people have
>> >> determined ethnicity primarily by what people SAY they are, and
>> >> secondarily by who their documented parents are (which of course
>> >> ignores adoption and bastardy and cuckoldry).
>> >Who said anything about "heritage"? "Ethnos" is Greek for "race".
>> False. It is Greek for "nation" which is one meaning of "race".
>Remember Strong's? "ethnos eth'-nos Probably from G1486; a race ..."?
1. Only in YOUR version of Strong's so it isn't necessarily real.
2. You left out the parenthetical note. That is LYING, O son of the
Serpent of Eden.
>> And we see clearly from both words that ethnos is about shared
>> customs, not about lineage/genetics.
>Which ignores that the most important of all "shared customs" is
>having a common ancestor, which means being of a similar RACE.
So you don't know what a "custom" is either?
>> Comparison. You can "run" a computer or a washing machine. The word
>> "run" equates to "operate" in that context. But that equation is
>> limited ONLY to those contexts. A surgeon doesn't "run" a patient,
>> and a track star doesn't "operate" a race.
>When the word "ethnos" is used intermittently to mean "people",
>"nation", "gentile", and "heathen", we know precisely what the sense
>of the word is, and that sense is "race".
WE know that you are a LIAR, because the translators know what they
are doing and YOU do not. You can't understand English, and you think
that Celtic and Hebrew are the same language because Irish people use
Biblical names just like Mexicans.
>When it's used in the very
>same sentence as "genos" to describe exactly the same people, then we
>know that it's a reference to the RACE of the people being described.
No it isn't, because if they meant genos they would have used genos
and not ethnos.
>You can NEVER prove that the most important characteristic of an
>"ethnic group" is NOT its race.
By definition it is not. (Of course race is NEVER the most important
characteristic of anyone.)
>> >> >The following is an example of its use as "nation":
>> >> >
>> >> >John 11:51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that
>> >> >year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
>> >> >John 11:52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather
>> >> >together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
>> >> >
>> >> >The "children of God" are the Israelites who were scattered among all
>> >> >NATIONS,
>Yes, Caiaphas DID claim that jews were "children of God"
Then you admit the phrase quoted above was a LIE:
>The "children of God" are the Israelites who were scattered among all
>>> >> >NATIONS,
because you admit that in this verse it was the JEWS that were being
called the "Children of God"
>> >So you agree that "ethnos" also means "nation". What a breakthrough.
>> I never denied that it meant "nation", in the archaic 17th century
>> sense. It does not mean "race", in the sense that people normally use
>Are you going to accept the DICTIONARY definition for race that YOU
>provided, or are you now going to slither away to some other corner
>and whine that nobody ever goes by dictionary definitions, again?
There were MULTIPLE dictionary definitions of "race". In a given
sentence, race does NOT mean ALL of those definitions; it means only
one of them. And you cannot just pick and choose which one to use.
>Using YOUR dictionary definition, "skin color" is NOT a criteria for
>"race", and these STUPID jews [though I repeat myself] are a RACE.
It is a heritable characteristic used to identify people as a type.
>BUT--this doesn't meant that they're "White", because genetic evidence
>shows them to be 20-25% nigger, according to a jew "scientist"
You didn't understand that paper either. You don't understand plain
English, you don' understand Technical English, you don't understand
Hebrew or Greek. You don't understand physics.
And you don't understand what fool you are.
>Caiaphas was so upset that Christ discovered the big jew LIE that he
>demanded that Pilate crucify Christ to shut Him up.
That is not what the Holy Bible said. Quick making things up.
>What else do you need to see the difference between Israelites like
>Christ and jews like Caiaphas?
Ther would need to be an intelligent argument that Christ was not a
Jew. You are incapable of same.
>> >Notice that the word "nation" is translated from the Greek word "ethnos"
>> >which you already acknowledged above also means "race".
>> No I did NOT "acknowledge" that it means race. I was willing to accept
>> your quote of Strong's (which I shouldn't - I keep forgetting that you
>> edit or doctor the Strong's definitions, since the online Strong's
>> says nothing like what you say) which allowed
>> "a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe". That is NOT a one
>> word equivalent - you cannot use "race" without the "as of the same
>But the definition of "race" that YOU provided INCLUDES "nation"!!!!!!
So? Each one of these words has multiple meanings. But a word means
only one of those meanings at a time. Or maybe your posting name
defines you as a shithouse for a horseman.
>> But physical characteristics have NOTHING to do with ethnos
>Physical characteristics are NOT excluded,
Says the nincompoop who pulls stuff out of his strange orifices.
More information about the Neur-sci