IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

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

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Fri Oct 11 12:39:13 EST 2002


"Jd" <JDay123 at BellSouth.com> wrote in message
news:3da610ab.35954736 at news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote:
>
> >>JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
> >>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".
> >
> >There's a difference.  We cannot argue religion on the basis of
> >science because by definition religion deals with things that are
> >supernatural and not natural.
>
> But you can argue religion before the law just as you can argue race
> before the law.
>
> >Now if you want us to believe that the difference between races is
> >supernatural in nature, then indeed science has nothing to say.  But
> >if there is a supposedly natural basis for race, then science should
> >be able to detect it.  But of course it cannot.
>
> I want you to believe that science is insufficient when it comes to
> addressing both race and religious issues compared to the way law
> can and does address those issues.
>
> >>Thereforescience 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.
>
> >Science is irrelevant to religion.  Whether religion is an important
> >issue depends on your point of view.
>
> According to the law, religion is just as important as race.  The
> fact that either race or religion can be or are irrelevent to
> science only shows the shortcomings of science.
>
> According to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, being born in
> America entitles one to citizenship and to equal protection under
> the law.  That is were race, religion and or minority status comes
> into play in that all are entitled to the same protection under the
> law reguardless of the aforementioned.
>
> >Science is quite relevant to race - it says that there are no races
> >other than the human race.  And race would not be an issue at all, if
> >racists like you did not make it an issue.  It certainly is not one of
> >the most important issues of today.
>
> Race is an issue because there are various races which at times,
> claim that they are being discriminated against because of their
> race.
>
> >>"Race" is associated with "color" in the U.S. Constitution, Bob.
>
> >Actually it isn't.  If race was based on color, then they would not
> >have needed to use both words, only one of them.
>
> Race and color are for all practical purposes, the same. "Color" has
> been and is used as a legal term for identifying humans.  Here's a
> case from the Supreme Court (related to the 14th Amendment) which
> proves it,  beyond a "reasonable doubt"....
>
> EVANS V. NEWTON 382 U.S. 296 NO. 61. ARGUED NOVEMBER 9-10, 1965. -
> DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1966. - 220 GA. 280, 138 S.E.2D 573, REVERSED.
>
> " QUESTIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF ALL PEOPLE WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION
> ON ACCOUNT OF COLOR ARE OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE IN THIS GOVERNMENT
> DEDICATED TO EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL" (Justice Black)
>
> Also, the following proves (according to law) that if as you claim,
> science says that there is only one race -  you or science is wrong.
> Fact of the matter is that law recognizes that whites and blacks are
> 2 distictly different races.  Again - from the Supreme Court which
> is the law of the land....
>
> SWAIN V. ALABAMA 380 U.S. 202 NO. 64. ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1964. -
> DECIDED MARCH 8, 1965. - 275 ALA. 508, 156 SO. 2D 368, AFFIRMED.
>
> "VENIRES DRAWN FROM THE JURY BOX MADE UP IN THIS MANNER
> UNQUESTIONABLY CONTAINED A SMALLER PROPORTION OF THE NEGRO COMMUNITY
> THAN OF THE WHITE COMMUNITY. BUT A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS
> NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO DEMAND A PROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF
> HIS RACE ON THE JURY WHICH TRIES HIM NOR ON THE VENIRE OR JURY ROLL
> FROM WHICH PETIT JURORS ARE DRAWN." VIRGINIA V. RIVES, 100 U.S. 313,
> 322-323; GIBSON V. MISSISSIPPI, 162 U.S. 565; THOMAS V. TEXAS, 212
> U.S. 278, 282; CASSELL V. TEXAS, 339 U.S. 282.
>
> >>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".
>
> >Where is science used to pass laws dealing with race in the following?
>
> I laid it out clearly.  If you didn't get it perhaps you should
> start from scratch and check those 3 encyclodedias of yours.
> Didn't you say they had tons of information which my encyclopedia
> didn't?
>
> >That a law mentions "race" does not mean anything about how race is
> >determined.  And as I've said, in practice, race is generally based on
> >self-identification - you are whatever race you say you are.
>
> That the Supreme Court addresses race and religion similarily shows
> that folks look to law instead of science for answers to real life
> issues.  The highest court in the land acknowledges that it's
> citizens cherish the right to vote along both racial and religious
> lines, and that government has no right to interfere with those
> rights...
>
> WRIGHT V. ROCKEFELLER 376 U.S. 52 NO. 96. ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1963.
> - DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1964. - 211 F. SUPP. 460, AFFIRMED.
>
> "OF COURSE RACE, LIKE RELIGION, PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE
> CHOICES WHICH INDIVIDUAL VOTERS MAKE FROM AMONG VARIOUS CANDIDATES.
> (FN12) BUT GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS DESIGNING ELECTORAL DISTRICTS
> ALONG RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS LINES."
>
> This is reality, Bob.  Our government is FOR all of us voting for
> the man of our color if we want too.  They are FOR us voting
> Christians into office simply because they are "Christian" if we
> want to.
>
> If you are against those things, well, I'll let the readers decide
> for themselves whatever they want too about you.
>
> Jd
>

The polls show that most Americans would immediately, if given the choice,
exile jews and "liberals" and niggers.  Proposition 187 was a vote based on
RACE, regardless of what lojbab claims, and two thirds of Californians voted
FOR this proposition AGAINST illegal immigration of more muds.
http://christianparty.net/poll.htm

There's really nothing more to discuss.  We need to do exactly what our
Founding Forefathers like Thomas Jefferson would have done--take decisive
action to rid the nation of this scourge of jews and muds.

John Knight





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net