Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are only Caucasians nudists?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Naturist Mark
    replied
    quote:
    So if you are going to discuss why certain groups are less likely to be naturists, you have to use the terms they identify with. To say race does not exist or is errelevent is to use semantics to hide or obscure the issue.


    The discussion had wandered its way around to discussing 'race' in terms of the biological sciences, a place where it is no longer considered a valid term - biologically race does not exist.

    Race continues to mean a lot socially. Far too much. We can only hope that as we grow up it will become as unimportant as it is biologically.

    -Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • Baron Lake
    replied
    Nudetech, we are unlikely to resolve important issues by perpetuating ignorance, especially when ill-defined terms are at the heart of the problem.

    BTW. Where are the moderators on this thread? Come on guys, ya gonna let Mark get away with using words like taxonomically on a family forum?
    b.l.

    Leave a comment:


  • nudetech
    replied
    quote:
    "Race" is a taxonomically invalid category


    But we are not righting an academic paper here, are we? We are talking about peoples behavior, which is based largely on their perception of the world, and most people perceive the world, and themselves in terms of race. And they see those races generally as black, white, asian, hispanic etc. So if you are going to discuss why certain groups are less likely to be naturists, you have to use the terms they identify with. To say race does not exist or is errelevent is to use semantics to hide or obscure the issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naturist Mark
    replied
    quote:
    The question is whether the English language words species and race mean the same thing, and I have demonstrated that they do not. Race is subordinate to species, as "lima" is subordinate to "bean." That's all.



    "Breed" is subordinate to species. "Race" is a taxonomically invalid category. All of humanity is so closely related that there are no other breeds of mankind. If we were to assign breeds to mankind, we'd all be standard poodles. No second breed, no cross breeds. THAT is what genetic science has taught us.

    -Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • missouriboy
    replied
    quote:
    Depends on who you think are more authoritative on the question - evolutionary biologists or dictionary writers.
    The question is whether the English language words species and race mean the same thing, and I have demonstrated that they do not. Race is subordinate to species, as "lima" is subordinate to "bean." That's all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob S.
    replied
    MoBoy:"There, even the dictionary states that race is a category within species and is equivalent to breed."

    Yes. Our species is Homo sapiens. We, however, are in a subspecies of Homo sapiens called Homo sapiens sapiens. Therefore, H s sapiens is our race, which is within the species of Homo sapiens.

    And again, communication is not affected when everyone understands what is being said. I am not suggesting we replace any terms, I am simply stating my reasons for disliking the terminology.

    MoBoy:"Holy mackerel! Who introduced racism into this discussion?? Certainly not I!"

    No, I introduced the term and concept to further explain my antipathy for the term "race".

    Bob S.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naturist Mark
    replied
    quote:
    There, even the dictionary states that race is a category within species and is equivalent to breed. If your personal politics prevent you from agreeing with that, then as I said before, futher communication is stymied.


    Depends on who you think are more authoritative on the question - evolutionary biologists or dictionary writers.

    -Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • missouriboy
    replied
    quote:
    I understand the use of the terminology and accept that it means what it means, but I also disagree with its usage as well.
    From Merriam-Webster:

    species
    Function: noun
    (1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name

    race
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
    1 : a breeding stock of animals ((and humans ARE animals - moboy))
    2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
    3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

    There, even the dictionary states that race is a category within species and is equivalent to breed. If your personal politics prevent you from agreeing with that, then as I said before, futher communication is stymied. According to your beliefs, the title of this thread might well have been "Are only Homo Sapiens sapiens nudists?" And who could usefully respond to an oxymoron like that one?
    quote:
    Ultimately, it is not "racism" that we are dealing with. The hatreds, misunderstandings, and everything else are ethnic and cultural constructs. They look different, they act different, they worship different gods. They are bad. We must change them.
    Holy mackerel! Who introduced racism into this discussion?? Certainly not I!

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob S.
    replied
    MoBoy:"Without agreement on the simple definitions of ordinary words, communication breaks down and further development of understanding is stymied."

    I understand the use of the terminology and accept that it means what it means, but I also disagree with its usage as well.

    Ultimately, it is not "racism" that we are dealing with. The hatreds, misunderstandings, and everything else are ethnic and cultural constructs. They look different, they act different, they worship different gods. They are bad. We must change them.

    The underpinnings of racism are not "racial" by your definition. They are ethnic and cultural and that is where I have the biggest problem with the term racism, especially when combined with the fact that I feel the ethnicities are all a part of a single race.

    There have been other Homo Sapiens such as Homo sapiens idaltu as described in Wikipedia. They would represent another race of Humans. When it gets down to the subspecies, all are definitely in the same race.

    Bob S.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naturist Mark
    replied
    Race is not a meaningful biological term.

    It is a social construct - having to do with social (ethnic) proximity, but has no genetic distinction.

    What do I mean by that?

    Simply - there is as much genetic diversity between individuals of the same perceived "race" as between individuals of different races. The average differences between races is much less than the differences within the races.

    People tend to zero in on a few superficial characteristics, and say that they define "race" - things like skin color, eyelid shape - but ignore all the other variety in human shape in form and function. Truth is, when you consider your entire genome, you are as likely to be like a stranger of a different race from the opposite end of the world as you are of an unrelated stranger next door.

    Humans are amazingly close to nearly identical genetically - more so than almost any other successful species.

    Someone compared human "races" to dog "breeds". This comparison is actually useful. All domestic dogs are a single species. There is a very wide level of genetic variation between members of the species - yet they are still a single interfertile species. If humans were domestic dogs, our races wouldn't be different breeds, we are so much alike that we would all be poodles.

    Wikipedia on Race.

    An earlier and more direct discussion on race from these boards: What race or nationality are we?

    What DNA Says About Human Ancestry?and Bigotry
    Do Races Differ? Not Really, DNA Shows

    -Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • hootowl
    replied
    Anybody wanta go to chattroom with this one??

    Leave a comment:


  • hootowl
    replied
    One poster said that he thought that "of african descent" was a good way to put it, I ask, what about the family Debeers, they are of African descent arent they?? As they have lived in Africa for about 8 generations! Or do we go back longer than that? If so , how long? And if so, we are all decendants of Africa, according to the anthropoligists!!

    Leave a comment:


  • missouriboy
    replied
    Bob S., here is one more fact that tends to cement the point I'm trying to make: different races and different breeds may successfully interbreed within their own species and produce offspring, while different species may not.

    And if that allows species and race to be the same thing, then I'm a 500-pound canary!

    Leave a comment:


  • missouriboy
    replied
    quote:
    Moboy:"Humans are a single SPECIES, not a single race."

    To me, race and species are the same thing.
    And why, then, do we have the two different words? They represent two different levels of differentiation, and are not synonymous.
    quote:
    Moboy:"Do you also believe the species dog does not have different breeds?"

    There is no species dog. There is a species Canis lupis familiaris...
    I know that, but that isn't the point. The point is that breed is to Canis lupis familiaris as race is to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Yet, you believe species and race are the same thing, but species and breed are not the same thing. Impossibly illogical.

    Without agreement on the simple definitions of ordinary words, communication breaks down and further development of understanding is stymied.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob S.
    replied
    Moboy:"First you say you agree with Liam...and then you disagree with Liam, saying "humans are a single race.""

    You know, I've looked at that again and again and I think I may have either misread Liam or was agreeing with only part of his message.

    Moboy:"Humans are a single SPECIES, not a single race."

    To me, race and species are the same thing. There is always talk about the Human Race and that is the definition I prefer when talking about race.

    There are different ethnicities who share commonalities such as skin and hair color, facial features, height at maturity, etc. But I do not consider those differences to be representative of different races.

    Moboy:"Do you also believe the species dog does not have different breeds?"

    There is no species dog. There is a species Canis lupis familiaris, but no taxonomic nomenclature called dog. Now as for dogs, yes they have different breeds. But I would not consider there to be a poodle race or the Great Dane race.

    Moboy:"I think you are just kow-towing to Political Correctness, which dictates that race is to be ignored."

    I hate PC just as much as I hate the term race. As I mentioned, it is just a difference of opinion about which term should be used. I feel ethicity, you say race.

    Bob S.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X