these are closer to 'races' as genetically more distant cousins.

I imagine they would be more likely to be discriminated against if they existed today (than other humans)

Much as chimps don't have 'human rights'

Doesn't this support racism, not go against it.

As this supports my theory that the races are genetically and evolutionarily different.

This has nothing to do with racism.

"theory that the races are genetically and evolutionarily different" - the acknowledgment of different races is not racism. That would be akin to being called sexist for stating that there are males and females.

Tell that to my so called 'gifted' schoolmates. They call me racist for thinking that.

@Bex, true, but i would normally claim that the idea of different races is outdated, and that most people are actually very similar to every other member of the species.

And yes, people get accused of sexism for many things, when men and women are actually evolutionarily different and distinct.

My point being, judging a group based on their race is rather less than useful. You can judge a person based on the person they are...

This however goes to show that modern humans have in a short time assimilated or destroyed all of their closest relatives (many within recent pre-history)

You can allow that these sub-species were out-competed by homo sapiens sapiens, and that we are the ones who exists now simply because we are the ones who didn't die out (no need to feel guilty about some ancestor not dying...) but it still feels like genocide which we have in our shared past...

yep get over it, we are descended from rapists, murderers, and possibly even lawyers.

"@Bex, true, but i would normally claim that the idea of different races is outdated, and that most people are actually very similar to every other member of the species."
So you thing that men are women are evolutionarily different, but blacks and whites are the same. What have you been smoking, because I want to try some.

"This however goes to show that modern humans have in a short time assimilated or destroyed all of their closest relatives (many within recent pre-history)"
Survival of the fittest, they weren't fit to walk the planet among us, so we took them out. Good job ancestors, way to prove which species is best. GO HOMO SAPIENS!!!

"yep get over it, we are descended from rapists, murderers, and possibly even lawyers."
lol

No fasces - it only proves that Homo Sapiens Sapiens were the most successful in the given natural habitat.

'best' is some bullshit you made up to make yourself feel good. Talk about ego.

And yes, different genders have developed in parallel (with the same set of genes) to perform slightly different functions. Humans aren't the strongest, or fastest, or most threatening, we are the most versatile.

And while men and women are slightly specialized and thus better at some roles (like sending a woman in to be a negotiator OR asking a man to lead by heroic actions and impressing his opponents rather than compromise) we are still VERY versatile - these differences do not justify the 19th century view that women are passive and have no need to worry about thinking, politics or being represented (as a man/owner could represent their interests)

I did not say women are a different race. I simply acknowledged the differences. I also acknowledge that different 'races' are different, but i continue my claim that this particular categorization is not a useful one.

You would be better off talking about the cultural differences which leads to some people having a better work ethic. (like those some of those crazy protestants, or japanese pride/nationalism...)

There are genetic differences between people, but the cultural ones tend to have a massive impact on how people live.

"best' is some bullshit you made up to make yourself feel good. Talk about ego."
There is such thing as a best, the point is we were similar: both humanoids, same planet, same circumstances. Why did we survive and they didn't? Because we were more fit then them. It doesn't matter how good at something you are, what matters is what your good at. In this case, we were superior to them at what mattered: Survival. Thats all their is to it.

luckiest? perhaps, if you consider existance a fluke.

"You would be better off talking about the cultural differences which leads to some people having a better work ethic. (like those some of those crazy protestants, or japanese pride/nationalism...) "
isn't it all the same, our culture is shaped by our habitat, nurture's equivalent to evolution, the fact is, we are different:
Why is the average orient 3 inches shorter then the average black? Theres a gene that decides height.
Why do the orients have different eyes? theres a gene that decides that.
Why do we all have different skin? Again our genetics.
The races are different, and thats a fact of life, each race has superior qualities over the others, and were shaped simply because of the climate they lived in. If that isn't evolution I don't know what is.

"luckiest? perhaps, if you consider existance a fluke."
Luck plays a key part in everything, and luck is the only reason why I am agnostic, and not atheist.

NO, we now control our environment, so we shape the world where one trait is superior to another. In the past any given trait was 'best' as you put it, as compared to survival/reproduction rates.

Now we have the ability to overcome (most) of nature's quality control. And have to decide for ourselves what traits to value and what to kill off...

"NO, we now control our environment, so we shape the world where one trait is superior to another. In the past any given trait was 'best' as you put it, as compared to survival/reproduction rates."
Where we shaping the environment 50,000 years ago? The races are different in both aspects, otherwise we would look more similar then we do.

"Now we have the ability to overcome (most) of nature's quality control. And have to decide for ourselves what traits to value and what to kill off..."
Exactly, but we didn't always have that luxury.

By the way, Fasces, if you're going to quote Churchill, the least you can do is get the quote right.

Nah, I like bending the quotes. Age doesn't mean shit.

Well, news flash kiddo. You adjust the quote, and you're not quoting somebody, you're making up your own shit.

Its called intellectual dishonesty, and its not something that is found to be generally acceptable. It also makes you a liar.

How does that make me a liar. Its just me bending the truth.
"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brain."

Also what makes you think I am a kid.
Take out the two young's and my quote is correct.

Thats a typo, the two last lines should be swapped around.

.... Well, since you don't understand what a quote is, I'd assume you're young.

Because the alternative if you're not young is that you are simply stupid and/or ignorant.

Intentionally misquoting is lying. Period.

PS: You talk about having classmates, so its a pretty good bet you're under 18. Also, most colleges don't label people as gifted, so that likely throws out college too.

Example: "As this supports my theory that the races are genetically and evolutionarily different. "

Changed to: "As this supports my theory that some races are genetically and evolutionarily superior"

Change a few words, and the whole thing changes. This is why quotes must be complete, or they are effectively lies.

But I didn't change a few words. I removed two, which is totally different. Because technically speaking, he did say those words, in that exact order.

Well, you misquoting him is a lie.

And the fact that you don't even seem to understand reinforces two things:

1. You're a kid. Go figure.

2. What you say, and the information you use to back it up is automatically suspect, because you obviously don't place any value on truth and accuracy in conveying information. This may come back to bite you in the ass.

The kicker is that he didn't even say that. Which makes this even more amusing:

Case in point:

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."

* According to research by Mark T. Shirey, citing Nice Guys Finish Seventh: False Phrases, Spurious Sayings, and Familiar Misquotations by Ralph Keyes, 1992, this quote was first uttered by mid-nineteenth century historian and statesman François Guizot when he observed, Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head. This quote has been attributed variously to George Bernard Shaw, Benjamin Disraeli, Otto von Bismarck, and others.


So you're wrong at being wrong. I'm fairly sure that doesn't roll around and make it right, son.

"Well, you misquoting him is a lie."
Its not a lie, its bending the truth. Two similar things, but still different.

"And the fact that you don't even seem to understand reinforces two things:

1. You're a kid. Go figure."
Does it matter that I'm a kid? Does the fact that I have 10-15 years of less time to gather experience mean anything? I doubt it can make to many differences.

"2. What you say, and the information you use to back it up is automatically suspect, because you obviously don't place any value on truth and accuracy in conveying information. This may come back to bite you in the ass."
I guess, but it hasn't done that until now.

Bending of the truth.

Truth, like virginity is not subject to partials. It is either true, or it is not true.

What comes out of your mouth is one of three things: Truth, lies, and being mistaken.

The first is great, the second is shit, and the third just needs to be corrected.

You are obviously not telling truth, and you are not mistaken (anymore). I wonder what that leaves?

Your trying to oversimplify it. Rather then looking at what is true , lets look at what is a lie.
Am I lying when I say that Winston Churchill said:
Show me a Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brain.
No, why, because he said that, he said those exact words. Its just slightly out of context.
Therefore its not a lie, what does that make it? The partial truth.

You called me a kid, but I know something that I think is incomprehensibly to you. Nothing is always black or white there are always colors in between, until you can understand that, you have no right to treat me as a kid.
And so what if I am a kid? I have an IQ of 159 (take 3 times, all 3 were in the 150's this is the highest. And this wasn't some shitty online test.) and have skipped a grade in school. I am more knowledgeable then your average 16 year old.
You probably don't believe me though, simply because I partially misquoted Churchill.

Actually, as I just proved, he didn't say any of that.

I don't give a rats ass about how smart you think you are, because you are still grossly ignorant. Misquoting somebody deliberately is still dishonest, no matter how you want to spin it. Hell, in some cases misquoting somebody like that isn't just dishonest, but its also libel.

I have every right to treat you like a child if you continually ACT like one. Ignorance is one thing, but you've crossed over from simply being mistaken, to being willfully dishonest.

A response that would have ended this conversation when it started would be "Oh, damn. You're right, sorry about that" That would have been a mature adult response (and probably would have made me look like a nitpicking ass in turn). You chose to defend a position that is completely indefensible, which just goes to show you that just because you have potential brainpower doesn't mean you know jack or shit.

"Actually, as I just proved, he didn't say any of that."
and I just proved that he did.
"I don't give a rats ass about how smart you think you are, because you are still grossly ignorant."
How does partially misquoting someone make me ignorant?

"Misquoting somebody deliberately is still dishonest, no matter how you want to spin it. Hell, in some cases misquoting somebody like that isn't just dishonest, but its also libel."
I'm suppose to care why? The fact is if I don't like a quote I change it, if I change it someone complains that I am being unoriginal by copying someones work. So I at least have the decency to list my sources, if you believe the quotes, who cares your ignorant when it comes to knowing random Churchill quotes. And if you don't believe it, again who cares? Does it really matter if I took a quote and partially changed it so it could apply to what I wanted? What would you rather? Me take credit for the quotes? Or lay credit where credit belongs?

"I have every right to treat you like a child if you continually ACT like one."
by responding your acting just as childish as I am. :p

" Ignorance is one thing, but you've crossed over from simply being mistaken, to being willfully dishonest. "
see above

"A response that would have ended this conversation when it started would be "Oh, damn. You're right, sorry about that" That would have been a mature adult response (and probably would have made me look like a nitpicking ass in turn)"
I'm a fascist, given how much people have bullied me over the years because of the views, I have developed the need to defend everyone of them. Call it some ignorant, immature, ambition, but I don't like giving up. I don't throw the towel in when someone is wrong, it may have gotten me beaten up in the past, but at least I didn't give into, give them what they wanted.