Posted: Mon 01 May 2006 13:35 Post subject: Altertude's questions about site policy
Altertude wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
If a cab will pull over for them, and ladies won't don't hold on extra tight to their handbags when their pass - more power to them.
I strongly doubt that cab drivers pull over and women don't hold onto handbags based upon someone's group affiliation. Such colorism is driven by the target's looks, not by the target's group affiliation. Please cite evidence.
I am talking about the look. How would a cab driver or "white" women know what group affiliation Byrd is claiming. People can Google "driving while black".
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Right! [Brits] are living in the global caste system.
I strongly doubt that.
In this instance it would have been better not to change my words. Now you are doubting something I never wrote.
Quote:
"Caste" means endogamous group.
Caste, meaning a system of dividing society into classes, and where certain classes inherit certain priviledges.
Quote:
Afro-European endogamy exists only in the United States. Please cite evidence.
No idea of what your point is here.
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Either [skin tone is] a dominant trait or its not.
It is not. I already explained how skin tone works.
Again the change detracts from what I am trying to ascertain.
What sense would it make for me to ask is skin tone dominant?
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
From what I've seen of the world, including the pictures in this thread (contrary to what others say about people are not "cans of paint"), "dark" plus "dark" usually produces another light person, similarly "light" plus "light" usually produces another light person. All I see is here is gradual color lightening or darkening, the direction of which can usually be predicted from the parents and grandparents.
Altertude is apparently immune to the evidence of Altertude's own eyes. One of the pictures shows twins, one of whom is lighter and the other darker than both parents. If you mix two cans of medium paint, you do not get a mix that is darker (or lighter) than both original cans, one time in four.
This kind of twins are a common occurence, are they?
The parents look roughly light medium phenotype, but may differ in the genotype. This is like thinking your mixing six cans of medium paint, when your actually mixing 2 cans of medium, 2 cans of light-medium, and 2 cans of light-medium.
Quote:
The genetics of skin tone is not a topic open to unsubstantiated opinion that flies in the face of overwhelmingevidence. The two best elementary explanations are Curt Stern, Principles of Human Genetics, 3d ed. (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1973), 443-65 and L. L. Cavalli-Sforza and W. F. Bodmer, The Genetics of Human Populations (Mineola NY: Dover, 1999), 527-31. For deeper explanations, see Richard A. Sturm, Neil F. Box, and Michele Ramsay, “Human Pigmentation Genetics: The Difference is Only Skin Deep,” BioEssays 20 (1998): 712-21; B.K. Rana and others, “High Polymorphism at the Human Melanocortin 1 Receptor Locus,” Genetics 151, no. 4 (1999): 1547-48; R.M. Harding and others, “Evidence for Variable Selective Pressures at MC1R,” Journal of Human Genetics 66, no. 4 (2000): 1351; and P.A. Kanetsky and others, “A Polymorphism in the Agouti Signaling Protein Gene is Associated with Human Pigmentation,” American Journal of Human Genetics 70 (2002): 770-775. If Altertude (or anyone else) wants to explain how skin tone works, either stick to what is known or present newly discovered evidence.
Do these explain the origin of light-genes and dark-genes?
Do they present evidence of the skin coloration of the earliest modern humans. I think you may have addressed some of this in one of your papers which I am trying to work through.
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Zsana and mixedmom, what are the pretty pictures you posted supposed to show?
The title of this thread is "Black parents with White kids." The photos in question show Black parents with White kids.
Really
Boris Becker, black; David Bowie, black?
Who is the father of Rae Dawn Chong's daughter, anyone?
Quote:
I urge Altertude to read the The Rules. In contrast to some other sites, this site (OneDropRule) tolerates a mild level of hostility if claims are backed up by evidence. But, in contrast to most other sites, this site does not tolerate factual assertions that are not backed up by evidence.
I have read the rules, sir. Would you be so kind to point out the hostility and the factual assertions, I have made, please?
Quote:
If Altertude has uncovered new evidence on cab driver behavior, on Euro-African endogamy outside the United States, or on the genetics of skin tone, then Altertude should cite this evidence. Otherwise, Altertude should stick to expressing advocacy, not claiming facts.
I am talking about the look. How would a cab driver or "white" women know what group affiliation Byrd is claiming. People can Google "driving while black".
No. You were not. Powell wrote, "I think we should say that we are talking about the offspring or descendants of people who were (at least at one time) forced to publicly identify with the "black" endogamous group. Charles M. Byrd was brought up to do so, but has rejected it. Ward Connerly has partially rejected it." And you replied, "If a cab will pull over for them, and ladies won't don't hold on extra tight to their handbags when their pass - more power to them." You were obviously responding to Powell, who was obviously talking about self-identity. You now are approaching a suspension of your posting privileges, and denying what you wrote is not going to help.
Altertude wrote:
In this instance it would have been better not to change my words. Now you are doubting something I never wrote.
Again, you are denying what you wrote. Powell wrote, "The parents of the "white and black twins" are British and living in the UK, so they were never part of the American caste." And you replied, "You Right! They are living in the global caste system." Now you are claiming that your, "They," does not refer to Powell's, "British and living in the UK." This is unconvincing.
Altertude wrote:
Caste, meaning a system of dividing society into classes, and where certain classes inherit certain privileges.
No. Now you are claiming ignorance of word meaning. In intellectual discourse, you cannot use words however you wish. Any elementary social sciences textbook (sociology, cultural anthropology, history) will explain to you the difference between class (socio-economic status) and caste (endogamous group). If you do not know what a word means, then do not use it.
Altertude wrote:
No idea of what your point is here.
See prior Q&A.
Altertude wrote:
Again the change detracts from what I am trying to ascertain.
Again, you are denying what you wrote. Powell wrote, "we are really dealing with the myth that 'dark' or 'nonwhite' genes always overwhelm 'white' ones." And you replied, " Either its a dominant trait or its not." Now you are claiming that your, "its" [sic] does not refer to Powell's, "'dark' or 'nonwhite' genes always overwhelm 'white' ones." This is unconvincing.
Altertude wrote:
What sense would it make for me to ask is skin tone dominant?
It makes no sense. But you are the one who brought it up when you said, "Either its a dominant trait or its not." You wrote as if this were a matter of opinion. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact, and the answer is "no."
Altertude wrote:
The parents look roughly light medium phenotype, but may differ in the genotype. This is like thinking your mixing six cans of medium paint, when your actually mixing 2 cans of medium, 2 cans of light-medium, and 2 cans of light-medium.
Now you are claiming an inability to distinguish between analog encoding (paint pigments, Xerox copying) and digital encoding (DNA, computer file copying). I find this hard to believe. But if this is truly the case then please refrain from participating in genetics discussions henceforth.
Altertude wrote:
Do these explain the origin of light-genes and dark-genes?
No, they do not. They explain the heredity of human skin tone. "Origin of genes" is something else entirely. The genes to synthesize melanin for pigmentation originated in the earliest organisms, before the Cambrian.
Altertude wrote:
Do they present evidence of the skin coloration of the earliest modern humans.
No, they do not. The skin tone of the OOA band of 75 kya, and earlier peoples in Africa is anybody's guess.
Altertude wrote:
Really Boris Becker, black; David Bowie, black? Who is the father of Rae Dawn Chong's daughter, anyone?
Stop this weaseling immediately. The thread's opening message says, "whether a parent who self-identifies as a member of the U.S. Black endogamous group can have a child who looks so White (has such a European phenotype) that he or she has little choice in adulthood but to either self-identify as White (like Carol Channing) or to evade the question altogether (like Vin Diesel)." A parent is what I wrote, and a parent is precisely what I meant.
Altertude wrote:
Would you be so kind to point out the hostility and the factual assertions, I have made, please?
Hostility is not the issue. Please read carefully what I wrote, "this site (OneDropRule) tolerates a mild level of hostility if claims are backed up by evidence." The issue is factual assertions without evidence. Again, please read carefully what I wrote, "this site does not tolerate factual assertions that are not backed up by evidence." I already lissted the three factual assertions that you made without evidence. Please read them again. I wrote, "If Altertude has uncovered new evidence on (1) cab driver behavior, on (2) Euro-African endogamy outside the United States, or (3) on the genetics of skin tone, then Altertude should cite this evidence."
Altertude wrote:
What do you mean by expressing advocacy?
To "express advocacy" is to preach what people should or should not do. Here are five examples: (1) People should (or should not) have the right to choose their own social group. (2) White people (or Black people) are evil and should be suppressed. (3) Intermarriage and "race-mixing will destroy (or improve) the universe. (4) Hispanics and other people of color should oppose the Black struggle against White racism (or should support and side with Blacks in that struggle). (5) African Americans should seek integration and the dissolving of the endogamous U.S. color line in order to join the mainstream U.S. society as equals or African Americans should seek total separation from evil White society and demand a federal death penalty for interracial dating. Notice that all these phrases have in common the use of the term "should."
A simple example of the difference between advocacy and a factual claim is between the following two sentences: (1) Congress should declare that Venus as two moons. (2) Venus has two moons. The first is political advocacy. The second is a factual claim
The ODR discussion site does not have a strict policy on political advocacy, although we discourage it because other discussion groups handle it better than we do. The ODR discussion site does have a strict policy on factual claims--that they must be supported by evidence.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Mon 01 May 2006 16:54 Post subject:
Following the Administator's incredible response above, telling what my own words mean in totality, and restricting vocabulary to how he defines it, I have myself, decided to suspend my posting privileges for 7 days.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Sat 06 May 2006 12:58 Post subject:
“And now the end is near, and so I face the final curtain, my friends I say it clear, I’ll state my case of which I’m certain.” - F.Sinatra
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
I am talking about the look. How would a cab driver or "white" women know what group affiliation Byrd is claiming. People can Google "driving while black".
No. You were not. Powell wrote, "I think we should say that we are talking about the offspring or descendants of people who were (at least at one time) forced to publicly identify with the "black" endogamous group. Charles M. Byrd was brought up to do so, but has rejected it. Ward Connerly has partially rejected it." And you replied, "If a cab will pull over for them, and ladies won't don't hold on extra tight to their handbags when their pass - more power to them." You were obviously responding to Powell, who was obviously talking about self-identity.
This is interesting, fwsweet knows the “obvious meaning” of both myself’s and Powell’s writing. Well, since he has only recently encountered mine, he must have some surefire way of uncovering meaning, or perhaps, he is infalable? NB: there are no quotes on the word pass in my original statement.
Obviously, I was responding to Powell, I quoted her. If she was talking about self-identity, how does what I responded, exclude my drawing attention to the importance of look in the situation I described? Since fwsweet knows what I mean by my words better than I do, let him explain to me how a cab driver or "white" women would know what group affiliation Mr. Byrd might be claiming, if I was talking about self-identity.
Quote:
You now are approaching a suspension of your posting privileges, and denying what you wrote is not going to help.
Why am I? Where do I deny what appears in a post under the name Altertude?
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
In this instance it would have been better not to change my words. Now you are doubting something I never wrote.
Again, you are denying what you wrote.
Are you claiming what you quoted under my name is what I originally posted?
Quote:
Powell wrote, "The parents of the "white and black twins" are British and living in the UK, so they were never part of the American caste." And you replied, "You Right! They are living in the global caste system." Now you are claiming that your, "They," does not refer to Powell's, "British and living in the UK." This is unconvincing.
No, it’s worse than that, its terroristic. Yet again my fellow list members, fwsweet has access to priviledged information about the single meaning of my words (as he sees it). I made no such assertion that they were not "British and living in the UK."
List members should note another incorrect reproduction of my words -the addition of “You”. Not substantial enough to produce major misunderstanding, this time, but this now seems a pattern.
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Caste, meaning a system of dividing society into classes, and where certain classes inherit certain privileges.
No. Now you are claiming ignorance of word meaning. In intellectual discourse, you cannot use words however you wish. Any elementary social sciences textbook (sociology, cultural anthropology, history) will explain to you the difference between class (socio-economic status) and caste (endogamous group). If you do not know what a word means, then do not use it.
fwsweet is of the opinion (or it is the rules of this group) that whenever somebody writes something, they are making a claim. He is also of the opinion that this discussion group occurs within a scholarly format. This may be the goal, but I have seen frequent uses of many words in a less than scholarly way. He is also of the opinion that in no sociology, cultural anthropology, or historical text will we find a definition of caste which approximates my usage. According to him there is no possible way what I wrote can have any utility in describing what we see around us in the world. The white supremacist (racists) would like to everyone to believe that the difference between the ‘have’s’ and the ‘have not’s’ in the world is soley due to socio-economics or market forces.
Of course, it is obvious to him how the word class is being used in the above quote. So if anybody asks you what kind of music Chopin, Beethoven or Wagner are famous for composing, just remember it is music for people of different socio-economic status.
Ditto. One would think I had used the words endogamous or self-identity in my reply, to get harrassed like this because one reader cannot make any sense of my reply.
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Again the change detracts from what I am trying to ascertain.
Again, you are denying what you wrote. Powell wrote, "we are really dealing with the myth that 'dark' or 'nonwhite' genes always overwhelm 'white' ones." And you replied, " Either its a dominant trait or its not." Now you are claiming that your, "its" [sic] does not refer to Powell's, "'dark' or 'nonwhite' genes always overwhelm 'white' ones." This is unconvincing.
Why would a person have a conversation when the other knows already what one is “claiming” and what one is “denying”? Look at the words which are analysed, “its”, they indicate to me fwsweet is struggling to understand the substance of what I wrote. This is in marked contrast to our first exchanges. I wonder what has happened between then and now?
We are now in a state of terror.
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
What sense would it make for me to ask is skin tone dominant?
It makes no sense. But you are the one who brought it up when you said, "Either its a dominant trait or its not." You wrote as if this were a matter of opinion. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact, and the answer is "no."
Did I write “is skin tone dominant”? Somehow he seems to have no memory of altering my words when he quotes me, so what do you think is happening in his head while he reads me? Free thinking list members might even begin to notice that the subject of ODR, “race”, and the color line, has long since left the focus of the interchange. The administrator would probably have you believe that this is why he moved my post over to here, and that it is me who went off topic. Moving my post here makes me the focus of the discussion. Hence his attitude to every little thing I am writing.
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
The parents look roughly light medium phenotype, but may differ in the genotype. This is like thinking your mixing six cans of medium paint, when your actually mixing 2 cans of medium, 2 cans of light-medium, and 2 cans of light-medium.
Now you are claiming an inability to distinguish between analog encoding (paint pigments, Xerox copying) and digital encoding (DNA, computer file copying). I find this hard to believe. But if this is truly the case then please refrain from participating in genetics discussions henceforth.
See what I mean? No I am too ignorant to learn. That was supposed to be 2 medium, 2 light-medium, and 2 dark-medium, by the way. I’m not grasping the difference between xerox copying and computer file copying with reference to genes.
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Do these explain the origin of light-genes and dark-genes?
No, they do not. They explain the heredity of human skin tone. "Origin of genes" is something else entirely. The genes to synthesize melanin for pigmentation originated in the earliest organisms, before the Cambrian.
Thats curious because previously
fwsweet wrote:
In the above case, each parent has genes for fair complexion and also has genes for dark complexion. And so the father produces some sperms at random with light genes and some sperms with dark genes.
See what I mean?
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Do they present evidence of the skin coloration of the earliest modern humans.
No, they do not. The skin tone of the OOA band of 75 kya, and earlier peoples in Africa is anybody's guess.
Okay, there are no facts out there on that question at this time.
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Really Boris Becker, black; David Bowie, black? Who is the father of Rae Dawn Chong's daughter, anyone?
Stop this weaseling immediately. The thread's opening message says, "whether a parent who self-identifies as a member of the U.S. Black endogamous group can have a child who looks so White (has such a European phenotype) that he or she has little choice in adulthood but to either self-identify as White (like Carol Channing) or to evade the question altogether (like Vin Diesel)." A parent is what I wrote, and a parent is precisely what I meant.
And that is in The Rules isn’t it, about weaseling? I asked ‘Who is the father of Rae Dawn Chong's daughter’, not who is my father, thank you. What is worse weaseling or insufficient data? But why should I be surprised in fwsweet not caring to mention a “white” child’s other parent who is (white). As he believes what’s in his head is plenty enough to dictate both sides of this “conversation”. Since when does one parent tell all about a child’s genetics?
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Would you be so kind to point out the hostility and the factual assertions, I have made, please?
Hostility is not the issue.
So why mention it?
fwsweet wrote:
Please read carefully what I wrote, "this site (OneDropRule) tolerates a mild level of hostility if claims are backed up by evidence." The issue is factual assertions without evidence. Again, please read carefully what I wrote, "this site does not tolerate factual assertions that are not backed up by evidence." I already lissted the three factual assertions that you made without evidence. Please read them again. I wrote, "If Altertude has uncovered new evidence on (1) cab driver behavior,
I have no idea why I have to present a scientific study to support a simple response—which you claim was about self-identity. As someone who claims to have higher knowledge of what other people mean, I think you should tell me the study which will support the factual claim you say I made. We can start with the old evidence on cab driver behavior if you prefer.
Quote:
on (2) Euro-African endogamy outside the United States, or (3) on the genetics of skin tone, then Altertude should cite this evidence."
Who was talking about endogamy, not me. I have some ignorant ideas about how the word is defined, but if you want to send me to where I can get the definitive meaning you endorse, go ahead.
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
What do you mean by expressing advocacy?
To "express advocacy" is to preach what people should or should not do. Here are five examples: (1) People should (or should not) have the right to choose their own social group. (2) White people (or Black people) are evil and should be suppressed. (3) Intermarriage and "race-mixing will destroy (or improve) the universe. (4) Hispanics and other people of color should oppose the Black struggle against White racism (or should support and side with Blacks in that struggle). (5) African Americans should seek integration and the dissolving of the endogamous U.S. color line in order to join the mainstream U.S. society as equals or African Americans should seek total separation from evil White society and demand a federal death penalty for interracial dating. Notice that all these phrases have in common the use of the term "should."
A simple example of the difference between advocacy and a factual claim is between the following two sentences: (1) Congress should declare that Venus as two moons. (2) Venus has two moons. The first is political advocacy. The second is a factual claim
The ODR discussion site does not have a strict policy on political advocacy, although we discourage it because other discussion groups handle it better than we do. The ODR discussion site does have a strict policy on factual claims--that they must be supported by evidence.
Thank you for that explanation. As I never made any claims in the form of example (2) I have nothing to support. Please be careful to correctly quote any other factual claims I may have made, and I will do my utmost to support them with evidence. I’m most anxious to do this, then I can request evidence from you for the factual claims you have made in this post.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Sat 06 May 2006 13:10 Post subject: Truimph of the ODR
“To say the words he really feels and not the words of one who kneels, the record shows I took the blows and did it my way.” - F.Sinatra
fwsweet wrote:
The title of this thread is "Black parents with White kids." The photos in question show Black parents with White kids.
On a board lamenting the triumph of the One Drop Rule, what can we say about a topic called, ‘Black Parents With White Children’, where tri/bi-“racial” parents and children are presented as black or white, instead of black and white? More evidence of the NACCP’s influence?
Why does noboby “pull up” the originator of this site and this topic for practising One-Droppism in a thread which was supposed to make the heredity of phenotypes clearer?
What are the implications, then, for this same person telling me I am disqualified from discussing genetics, following my inquiries in said topic?
On a board advocating people of mixed "racial" heritage having the right to identify with whatever ethnic background they resemble, how astounding that a person with an alternative view is vilified for deigning to define - within reason - the meaning of the words he uses?
Is there any contradiction between empowering multiracials to identify as they see fit, and disempowering others from idenitifying the meaning of the words they use? Is it that words aren't important but people do matter?
Asking to be judged on appearance is like judging words on appearance don't you think? Wanting "society" to ignore the background puts the "passing" individual in 'a different light', similar to restricting the context of words so they agree with ones certainties.
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude responded to the above with a series of questions about site policy. To avoid cluttering up this thread ("Black parents with White kids") with an unrelated discussion of site policy, I have moved Altertude's last post in its entirety to the thread "Altertude's questions about site policy" in the section titled "Forum Management." Those who wish to follow or participate in this tangent are ivited there.
Is anyone (apart from the administrator himself) prepared assess the correctness of this claim. No doubt he has the right, but was it correct to move my whole post, and label it ‘questions about site policy’?
Well, does my post which the administrator moved into this forum from the ‘Black Parents With White Children’, topic addresses that topic?
What amount of my post which the administrator moved into this forum requests information about site rules?
If you carry out this calculation, can you tell me what items I may be able to re-post in the previous topic and which are best tackled in this Forum Management topic?
Do the site rules legitimise the Administrator telling a member what the member had in mind, is different from what the member has said he had in mind?
I’m not grasping the difference between xerox copying and computer file copying with reference to genes.
It is the difference between analog encoding and digital encoding. Xerox machines, like a VCR tapes, are analog encoded. So a copy of a copy of a copy... etc., is pretty wretched because each act of copying loses information and deteriorates quality. Also, when you combine two analog-encoded data streams the result is a blend (as in the cans of paint). But for digital encoding (as in a computer file or DVD), you can make a copy of a copy of a copy..., etc., forever with no deterioration because all in information is preserved each time. Also, when you combine two digitally encoded data streams (as in DNA) and you are limited by storage capacity (your genome has room for only 30,000 genes), then half of the data must be discarded at each combining. Any introductory undergraduate genetics text explains this.
Altertude wrote:
On a board lamenting the triumph of the One Drop Rule....
That is not the goal of this discussion group. Please see The Rules.
Altertude wrote:
Can you tell me what items I may be able to re-post in the previous topic and which are best tackled in this Forum Management topic?
Messages pertinent to any particular thread topic go in the thread. Questions, arguments, complaints, whining, etc. about ODR rules go here. Nevertheless, if you want to retain your posting privileges, I suggest that you seriously consider my warnings. As far as I am concerned, you are now on probation and any stepping over the line will result in immediate suspension. Again, if you are unsure where the line is, see The Rules.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Sat 06 May 2006 15:34 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
On a board lamenting the triumph of the One Drop Rule....
That is not the goal of this discussion group. Please see The Rules.
Which to fwsweet means nobody can be described as lamenting...so everything following the above quote detailing his actions questions and scholarly reply can be outlawed, pushed underground. MY WAY.
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Can you tell me what items I may be able to re-post in the previous topic and which are best tackled in this Forum Management topic?
Messages pertinent to any particular thread topic go in the thread. Questions, arguments, complaints, whining, etc. about ODR rules go here. Nevertheless, if you want to retain your posting privileges, I suggest that you seriously consider my warnings. As far as I am concerned, you are now on probation and any stepping over the line will result in immediate suspension. Again, if you are unsure where the line is, see The Rules.
The Rules do not support your actions. But your free to act according to your concern. fwsweet has cross the boundaries of the rules. What we witness here is blatant hypocrisy.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
