Australian Politics Forum - Australia Grows More "Asian"

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 144075
Gender: male

Re: Australia Grows More "Asian"
Reply #270 - Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 12:00am

Sparky wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 6:39pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 6:27pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 6:15pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 5:07pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 3:06pm:

Pretending not to see evident, obvious difference is just plain stupid.

Indeed.

Which is why nobody has actually done that.

Except you (and Brain/Stavos/Tits and all the other indistinguishable, shocked and outraged aunties.)

You want to ignore the obvious differences as a matter of 'PC sensitivity'. A Dane looks nothing like a Nigerian or a Japanese. No matter what you say.

I am looking forward to your next idiotic squirming, Peckerhead. Here's a simple question, Pecker: can you tell a European from an African and from an East/South East Asian?

Superficial physical differences, the result of evolutionary adaptation to local conditions, nothing more, Soren. The result is different skin colouring, the shape of eyes or other things.

Deep down, at a genetic level, we are all the same. All the supposed "races" can and do interbreed. Nothing prevents that. Therefore, the emphasis on "race" that you and others place on it, is purely a social construction, Soren. Roll Eyes

No we aren't. Why don't Asians have blue eyes?

My god, you're ignorant.

Back to top

IP Logged

Datalife

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2405
Gender: male

Re: Australia Grows More "Asian"
Reply #271 - Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 12:18am

ian wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 11:57pm:

Not only do you know nothing about genetics but also nothing about Indians. Southern Indians are Austronesian mostly.

How do you know? Are you basing that on appearance cos the counterpoint seems to be, that looks give you no useful information and may as well be disregarded?

Back to top

"If they’re out there in the high seas, what you would do is seek to turn them back through the agency of the Australian Navy".

Kevin Rudd on 2GB, July 12, 2007

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Australia Grows More "Asian"
Reply #272 - Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 12:24am

Datalife wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 12:18am:

ian wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 11:57pm:

Not only do you know nothing about genetics but also nothing about Indians. Southern Indians are Austronesian mostly.

How do you know?

Its called actual knowledge. Yes, I know you find it an astounding thing to actually know something based on factual information, revolutionary even. But there you go, and guess what? Im giving it to you for free! Yes, knowledge, absolutely free. No need to thank me. Quote:

Are you basing that on appearance cos the counterpoint seems to be, that looks give you no useful information and may as well be disregarded?

Language and culture. (more knowledge there for ya)

Back to top

IP Logged

Lord Herbert Gold Member Offline Posts: 34441 Gender:	Re: Australia Grows More "Asian" Reply #273 - Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 8:17am Datalife wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 9:30pm: The left are racist all right. They don't think little brown are intelligent, can plan and strategise. To a lefty a brown person is helpless and must be assisted and is blameless and always a victim because they are childlike. Patronising bastards.
Back to top	IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10277
Gender: male

Re: Australia Grows More "Asian"
Reply #274 - Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 8:26am

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 12:00am:

Sparky wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 6:39pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 6:27pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 6:15pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 5:07pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 3:06pm:

Pretending not to see evident, obvious difference is just plain stupid.

Indeed.

Which is why nobody has actually done that.

Except you (and Brain/Stavos/Tits and all the other indistinguishable, shocked and outraged aunties.)

You want to ignore the obvious differences as a matter of 'PC sensitivity'. A Dane looks nothing like a Nigerian or a Japanese. No matter what you say.

I am looking forward to your next idiotic squirming, Peckerhead. Here's a simple question, Pecker: can you tell a European from an African and from an East/South East Asian?

Superficial physical differences, the result of evolutionary adaptation to local conditions, nothing more, Soren. The result is different skin colouring, the shape of eyes or other things.

Deep down, at a genetic level, we are all the same. All the supposed "races" can and do interbreed. Nothing prevents that. Therefore, the emphasis on "race" that you and others place on it, is purely a social construction, Soren. Roll Eyes

No we aren't. Why don't Asians have blue eyes?

My god, you're ignorant.

http://theheartthrills.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/indian-girl.jpg

Peccy, some Indians, Afghans, Nepalese, Kurds, and Palestinians have blue/green eyes because they're actually related to the Europeans. The Aryans (a blond and blued eyed race) spread throughout where these countries today are situated. Hence why you can often find blue and green eyed people there. Not only is there a genetic link, but also a language link. Sanskrit is related to the European languages, which provides further evidence that at one time it was the same tribes that went to India are also now in Europe.

Your "progressive" morality has no place in this topic, Peccy. It clouds your judgement, and makes you out to be an uneducated, overly moral clown.

Back to top

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10277
Gender: male

Re: Australia Grows More "Asian"
Reply #275 - Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 8:30am

ian wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 11:57pm:

Sparky wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 7:07pm:

It's not extra genes Brian, it's variation in genes. This is what happened. Big groups of humans lived isolated from other groups of humans and evolved in certain ways (races). All humans , but just slight differences. The world has gotten smaller so theses distinct groups are changing. The overlap areas that border these distinct groups are a mixture e.g Indians. Race is all about isolation and evolution because of this. That's it.

Not only do you know nothing about genetics but also nothing about Indians. Southern Indians are Austronesian mostly.

Austronesian and Aryan (there's probably many other influences as well). This is why you get some Indians black as the ace of spades (Austronesian) and some tanned (Aryan mixture).

Back to top

IP Logged

Datalife

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2405
Gender: male

Re: Australia Grows More "Asian"
Reply #276 - Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 8:35am

ian wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 12:24am:

Its called actual knowledge. Yes, I know you find it an astounding thing to actually know something based on factual information, revolutionary even. But there you go, and guess what? Im giving it to you for free! Yes, knowledge, absolutely free. No need to thank me.

Now of course you can find me a reference for that actual knowledge and factual information. Not that I doubt you, but for my own learning, I might actually be on your side and at some later stage want to impress someone with my knowledge and I wouldn't expect them to accept what I, an unknown person on the internet say just because I say so. Would you?

Back to top

"If they’re out there in the high seas, what you would do is seek to turn them back through the agency of the Australian Navy".

Kevin Rudd on 2GB, July 12, 2007

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 144075
Gender: male

Re: Australia Grows More "Asian"
Reply #277 - Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 8:50am

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 8:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 12:00am:

Sparky wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 6:39pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 6:27pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 6:15pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 5:07pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 3:06pm:

Pretending not to see evident, obvious difference is just plain stupid.

Indeed.

Which is why nobody has actually done that.

Except you (and Brain/Stavos/Tits and all the other indistinguishable, shocked and outraged aunties.)

You want to ignore the obvious differences as a matter of 'PC sensitivity'. A Dane looks nothing like a Nigerian or a Japanese. No matter what you say.

I am looking forward to your next idiotic squirming, Peckerhead. Here's a simple question, Pecker: can you tell a European from an African and from an East/South East Asian?

Superficial physical differences, the result of evolutionary adaptation to local conditions, nothing more, Soren. The result is different skin colouring, the shape of eyes or other things.

Deep down, at a genetic level, we are all the same. All the supposed "races" can and do interbreed. Nothing prevents that. Therefore, the emphasis on "race" that you and others place on it, is purely a social construction, Soren. Roll Eyes

No we aren't. Why don't Asians have blue eyes?

My god, you're ignorant.

http://theheartthrills.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/indian-girl.jpg

Peccy, some Indians, Afghans, Nepalese, Kurds, and Palestinians have blue/green eyes because they're actually related to the Europeans. The Aryans (a blond and blued eyed race) spread throughout where these countries today are situated. Hence why you can often find blue and green eyed people there. Not only is there a genetic link, but also a language link. Sanskrit is related to the European languages, which provides further evidence that at one time it was the same tribes that went to India are also now in Europe.

Your "progressive" morality has no place in this topic, Peccy. It clouds your judgement, and makes you out to be an uneducated, overly moral clown.

Stay focused.

I'm not the one who said "Why don't Asians have blue eyes?"

Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Australia Grows More "Asian"
Reply #278 - Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 8:54am

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 8:41pm:

... wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 7:50pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 6:58pm:

If blue-eyed people had different or extra genes, they would be a difference species and unable to interbreed with other humans without some difficulty. Roll Eyes

A large-scale study of the variability in the human genome by Genaissance Pharmaceuticals, a biotechnology company in Connecticut... shows that while humans have only 32,000 genes, there are between 400,000 and 500,000 gene versions. More specifically, they found that different versions of a gene are more common in a group of people from one geographical region, compared with people from another.

As sparky said - variation, not extra genes. Maybe saying others "know SFA about genetics" isn't the best approach, when you're clearly struggling yourself.

I refer you back to Sparky's original statement, Honkey.

"Because there's a gene that Caucasians have that the other races don't for coloured eyes."

So, you agree that this is incorrect? It indicates that either Sparky knows SFA about genetics or he doesn't know what he's typing or there are several different personalities typing under the one username, "sparky".

And if he had have said "gene version" he'd have correct.

But it's easily understood what was meant - only a pednatic fvckwit furiously back pedalling would pretend this caused confusion.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Australia Grows More "Asian"
Reply #279 - Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 8:59am

ian wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 11:50pm:

... wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 4:42pm:

The reason I posted this, was because his description is well written for what was only ever going to be a game of semantics.

Quote:

What are races?

In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.

Under that criterion, are there human races?

Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups.

Can you contest this concept of race?

Of course, the author contradicts himself when he states there is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race and then states that "races" of mice are described soley on the basis of colour. how on earth can that be a criteria to delimit different human "races" ? Would I somehow change race when I get a suntan? what about albinos?

Contradicts himself eh? You'll have to highlight the statement that contradicts, because I don't see it.

Who said humans had to be classified in the same way as mice? Dogs aren't. Horses aren't. Probably very few animals are, hence the reason they gave mice as an extreme example. But of course, thinking for even 5 seconds before typing would be 5 seconds too much. Makes me wonder where you found the motivation and time to glean all this "actual knowledge and factual information" you claim to possess, but cannot demonstrate.

As I said before, the very fact they can be grouped according to their characteristics shows the biological basis. One can only sort things, when a criteria exists to sort by.

As it happens, "skin colour" isn't the only differnce. Do these look like honkies to you?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 9:08am by ... »

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Sparky

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1338
Gender: male

Re: Australia Grows More "Asian"
Reply #280 - Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 10:44am

ian wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 11:57pm:

Sparky wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 7:07pm:

It's not extra genes Brian, it's variation in genes. This is what happened. Big groups of humans lived isolated from other groups of humans and evolved in certain ways (races). All humans , but just slight differences. The world has gotten smaller so theses distinct groups are changing. The overlap areas that border these distinct groups are a mixture e.g Indians. Race is all about isolation and evolution because of this. That's it.

Not only do you know nothing about genetics but also nothing about Indians. Southern Indians are Austronesian mostly.

So says Dr Ian .BSC ( bronze swimming certicate) Head of BS at the Oz Politics Research Division.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Australia Grows More "Asian"
Reply #281 - Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 6:32pm

... wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 8:59am:

ian wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 11:50pm:

... wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 4:42pm:

The reason I posted this, was because his description is well written for what was only ever going to be a game of semantics.

Quote:

What are races?

In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.

Under that criterion, are there human races?

Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups.

Can you contest this concept of race?

Of course, the author contradicts himself when he states there is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race and then states that "races" of mice are described soley on the basis of colour. how on earth can that be a criteria to delimit different human "races" ? Would I somehow change race when I get a suntan? what about albinos?

Contradicts himself eh? You'll have to highlight the statement that contradicts, because I don't see it.

Who said humans had to be classified in the same way as mice? Dogs aren't. Horses aren't. Probably very few animals are, hence the reason they gave mice as an extreme example. But of course, thinking for even 5 seconds before typing would be 5 seconds too much. Makes me wonder where you found the motivation and time to glean all this "actual knowledge and factual information" you claim to possess, but cannot demonstrate.

As I said before, the very fact they can be grouped according to their characteristics shows the biological basis. One can only sort things, when a criteria exists to sort by.

As it happens, "skin colour" isn't the only differnce. Do these look like honkies to you?

http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/great-debates/46009d1248714549-why-th...

Honkies?
No they look like Albinos.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Australia Grows More "Asian"
Reply #282 - Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 6:43pm

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 11:25pm:

Grendel wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2013 at 9:12pm:

I think the big question here is why is bwian such an idiot.

Race exists bwian.
It is a term used to describe the results in the classification of and grouping of, certain biological aspects of humanity.

You may be a racist and deep down see superiority and inferiority in races... well that's something I've never done so don't start slinging that poo at everyone else.

You may be so demented, so PC, so LW, so Progressive... you've lost all sense and see everyone who can identify racial attributes as racists.

You may be so far off beam bwian you deny there are races and racial markers.

That's your problem.
Denial of reality has always been one of your many problems.

bwian is an obfuscating pedant of the worst variety... in all honesty he isn't worth the effort debating with.

It is obvious that your views are so entrenched that you are incapable of seeing that in reality, the way in which "race" as a concept is promoted and used by racists such as yourself, has no basis in science. There is no superiority or inferiority, merely superficial difference. Differences that evolution has promoted as the best adaptation to living in a given environment. You may choose to judge or more likely prejudge your fellow human beings on the basis of the colour of their skin or the shape of their eyes or their ability to absorb alcohol, Beowulf but that is a social construction that you and some other human beings have created. Those of us who prefer to look at the science recognise that the differences between the so-called "races" are in reality insignificant in the grand scheme. Roll Eyes

You know you are a lying piece of excrement bwian.
I know it.
Anyone who knows you... knows it.
There is not one racist bone in my body you lying turd.
I don't speak in colours.
I don't believe in racial superiority or inferiority.
You seem to have forgotten that in your effort to vilify and libel me here.
Let's see you post just one quote of mine over the last decade that states that one race is superior or inferior to another... if you can't lets see you disappear from this site and go back and slander and lie about people on yours.

Bwian... you have yet again amazed me at the level you have willingly slumped to... to lie and vilify me. You are a pathetic human being. Roll Eyes

The Net is full of my posts taking aim at racists and stating that racism is a false dogma.

You are the lowest of the low a true LW Prog... incapable of coping with dissent and incapable of admitting error. You seek only to destroy those who disagree with you.

You are well know on the Net bwian...

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Australia Grows More "Asian" Reply #283 - Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 8:42pm ian wrote on Dec 14^th, 2013 at 10:39pm: Any anthropologist will tell you that there is greater genetic diversity within racial groups than there is between them. So your argument is moot. Are you going to believe 'any anthropologist' or your own eyes and your own perceptions?
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98463

Re: Australia Grows More "Asian"
Reply #284 - Dec 24^th, 2013 at 8:47am

Soren wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 8:42pm:

ian wrote on Dec 14^th, 2013 at 10:39pm:

Any anthropologist will tell you that there is greater genetic diversity within racial groups than there is between them. So your argument is moot.

Are you going to believe 'any anthropologist' or your own eyes and your own perceptions?

I agree, old chap. Best to believe what you see with your own eyes and perceptions on Today tonight, no?

Back to top

IP Logged