"Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Pn7n9.14858$Kg4.1400858 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
> news:6hdopugu5a72haeg2fnt8au7835jegtpfr at 4ax.com...> > "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >"Dan Holzman" <holzman at panix.com> wrote in message
> > >news:andh5v$1hm$1 at panix2.panix.com...> > >> In article <Nypm9.3430$zz2.779420 at news20.bellglobal.com>,
> > >> Parse Tree <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >There's caucazoid, mongoloid and such. And it certainly is
> > >>
> > >> There is no scientific basis to those categories. To the extent that
> > >> they were once presented as "biological," they have been debunked.
> > >
> > >Isn't that like essentially stating there is no biological basis for
> > >different skin colour and different facial structure?
> > No it isn't. Not all people with a particular skin color are of the
> > same race, and not all of the same race have that skin color.
> > Likewise, any particular facial structure feature is also found in
> > multiple races, and no race has all of its members with the same
> > facial structure.
>> You don't judge it simply by skin colour. You judge it based on genetic
>> > The best we can say about racial features is that people of the given
> > race "usually" have one or more of them, and "often" have several in
> > combination - the latter being the reason they are classified by
> > appearance.
>> It is as probable that the people that don't have these features really
> of a different race, or a mix.
parsetree, you're arguing with a gal who claims that jews aren't a race at
the same time that she claims that the only reason jews were "holocausted"
is because they ARE a race.
How is it ever possible to reach agreement on what "race" means with someone
who can't even agree with herself?