On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:13:35 +0200, b thought carefully and wrote:

>> You have supported his point - I think he's asking about affirmative
>> action programs. Just as there is no reason to discriminate *against*
>> someone, there is no reason to discriminate *for* someone either.

> Jim has already exmplained this once. I'll try.
>... *even though* you recognize that there is "no reason to discriminate
> against" people classified in one particular group....., why should a
> government not recognize this situation, and take action *based on the
> actual discrimination process at stake* to try and level things out?

Perfect. Could not have said it better myself.

--

Love, Jim

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
=======================================================

Whoa just caught this....you disappoint me. You have to resort to
*editing* someone else's comments and then you acquiesce. 'b' can
probably articulate your position better than you can, not that that
matters. I am still waiting for YOUR response - not b's response - to
the article that I cited earlier though:

"But here's another interesting 21st century definition:
http://shrn.stanford.edu/workshops/revisitingrace/Risch_confound.pdf

Abstract: We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers
that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic
population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the
genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure
Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four
major racial/ethnic groups (white, African
American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15
different geographic locales within the United States
and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers
produced four major clusters, which showed
near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity
categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/
ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different
from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On
the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between
different current geographic locales within
each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is
highly correlated with self-identified race/
ethnicity-as opposed to current residence-is the major determinant
of genetic structure in the U.S. population.
Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association
studies are discussed. "

I mean, if you're honest, you can just come out of the closet and say
that science is lying and is merely a tool for domination. Look,
feminists say this all the time, like those thrusting cadences in
Beethoven's 9th?