Comment Re:Science creates understanding of a real world. (Score 1) 770
This is only true if you haven't been looking, as far as I can see.
This is only true if you haven't been looking, as far as I can see.
But as soon as you're going out to do any actual good work in the name of feminism, you're going to need a broader definition, one that opens it up for criticism.
Why, exactly, would that be?
But you still live in a world where a woman is very much more likely to be denied the rights which a man has easy access to than the other way around. For the most part, the differentiation you are insisting on is only applicable in a fantasy world which does not, as yet, exist.
Half of your argument is missing. You need the revenues collected information ("taxes per head"). If you get that and do the math, then you've got something.
None. I watch sports sporadically. Maybe a dozen NFL games, and once in awhile a special event like the Olympics or World Cup. However, I'm old enough to remember when that content was paid for purely by advertising. Now it still has advertising, so for me, the perceived value of being able to see these sports programs is pretty low. Certainly much much less per month than I pay for Netflix.
You don't need a dna sample or a computer program to get the point of origin of any persons ancestors. The answer is always the same: Africa.
I think it was the "can't imagine" part of the picture he was asking about, actually. I find it odd too. You would expect that someone with such a poor imagination could very easily be replaced by a machine these days.
And some bodies passed biology 40 or more years ago, and then biology passed them.
So you're saying a process which creates more variability will make a particular population be more the same as each other. Right. That makes sense.
You're getting warmer. Race is a make believe purely social construction which has no correlation with genetics. 100% of it is not genetically determined.
That there is no genetic test you can perform which will allow you to classify an individual as belonging to a particular "race". I'm not sure how you translate a similar test to large groups or populations, in any meaningful way.
Well enough to understand that it precludes any useful biological definition of race.
oh, also... what part of there is no group of genes which can be usefully used to identify race did you miss?
I have never heard race ascribed to any species other than human.
Why are you trying so hard to pretend those differences are plainly obvious?
Especially in the US where everyone is so mixed up.
One of the neat things genetics shows is that everyone is mixed up, whether it is visually noticeable to you or not.
Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari