Re: Wales, the new England?

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:46:42 +0100, Sean Byrne
<byrne_sean_spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:58:59 +0100, Sean Byrne
>> <byrne_sean_spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Charles wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 10:44:07 +0100, Sean Byrne
>>>><byrne_sean_spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Charles wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Contributors who intend relying upon Sean Byrne's dictionary need not
>>>>>>apply. ;o)
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, those boys at Oxford really have no idea don't they Charles?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's rather clumsily put Sean. ;o)
>>>
>>>Grammar flames?
>>
>> It was hardly a "flame" Sean, more of a gentle tease.
>>
>>>>We are having to accept all sorts of things that are at variance with
>>>>common sense Sean, and if it's in an on-line dictionary then it has to
>>>>be true,
>>>
>>>The Oxford Dictionary is an online one?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> But I don't believe you used the OED, as the definition you provided
>> is word for word from the on-line American Heritage® Dictionary of the
>> English Language. My office copy of the OED gives nothing like the
>> definition you provided.

Which I note you didn't deny, despite having inferred that your
definition was from the OED.

>
>And what does that say then Charlie boy?

It says this Shawney lad:

race /reis/ n

1. Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct
physical characteristics.

2. A tribe, nation, etc., regarded as of a distinct ethnic stock.

3. The fact or concept of division into races.

4. A genus, species, breed, or variety of animals, plants, or
micro-organisms.

5. A group of persons, animals, or plants connected by a common
descent.

6. Any great division of living creatures.

>
>>
>>>as I have already conceded (who is prepared to go to the
>>>
>>>>lengths required to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced,
>>>>that dictionaries and encyclopedia are fertile territory for the
>>>>politically correct?)
>>>
>>>Oh I believe that alright. However your definition is also a dictionary
>>>definition is it not?
>>
>> I didn't post a dictionary definition Sean, I posted a number of
>> definitions from the on-line dictionary, including the one that you
>> cherry-picked because it was in opposition to that which I had
>> suggested, which I have reproduced below.
>>
>> You said (without informing that it was a dictionary definition):
>>
>> **** "A group of people united or classified together on the basis of
>> common history, nationality, or geographic distribution" ******
>>
>> Seems to suggest they are."
>>
>> I said:
>>
>> "Only if you cherry-pick your definition from the dictionary:
>>
>> race n.
>>
>> 1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a
>> more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical
>> characteristics.
>>
>> *****************************************************************************
>> 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of
>> common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German
>> race.
>> (Identical to your defintion)
>> *****************************************************************************
>>
>> 3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
>> 4. Humans considered as a group.
>> 5. Biology.
>> 1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated
>> population of organisms differing from other populations of the same
>> species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been
>> given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
>> 2. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
>> 6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor
>> of a wine.
>>
>> (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.)
>
>
>Sigh. As explained previously all I had to do is provide *one*
>definition that was at odds to yours

<long sigh> I hadn't provided a definition at that stage Shawney, you
opted in with your cherry-picked definition first.

>to prove my assertion that whether
>New Zealanders are a race depends upon what definition you use.

No you didn't, you presented it as a fait accompli, and opted not to
mention that there were many other definitions.

>
>Is that really that difficult to comprehend?

No, I understood precisely what you were attempting to do. It's what
you always do; I believe Frank Bruno used to describe it as: "duckin'
and divin' 'arry". ;o)

>
>You do understand that if I say 'All cars are black' all you have to do
>is find one white one to disprove my theory?

I'm not getting into a racist argument about cars. ;o)

>
>>
>> Are you suggesting that the race of people who are black, oriental,
>> Asian etc., who become New Zealand citizens, are therefore ethnically
>> of a New Zealand race?
>>
>I'm suggesting that definition is used.

Is it your definitive definition and the one you would use to explain
to your children if they asked you the same question?

>
><snip story about Muslims and pigs>

Does the truth trouble you Shawney, or are you too PC to acknowledge
the problem or are you a Muslim who has taken offence?

>
>>>>It's time to make a stand soon if we are not to be subsumed by a
>>>>culture that may be alien to the vast majority of us, and if we are to
>>>>be defeated not by the bomb, but by our own woolly-minded liberal PC
>>>>social engineering crackpots.
>>>
>>>People like those 17th century social anthropologists from whom you draw
>>>your definition of race.
>>
>> Those definitions were based on fact and have stood the test of time
>> until very recently.
>
>Appeal to tradition is a common fallacious argument, I'm surprised you
>keep using it.

What's wrong with tradition Shawney? The UK is a nation with a
magnificent history, of which some may disapprove but most of which
many of us are very proud.

>
>> They are not based on some idiotic contemporary
>> PC premise that we are all the same.
>
>No, they were based on the premise of racial superiority.

Only in the minds of the woolly-minded liberal PC brigade, who look
always for reasons to be offended when there are none.

>
>>
>> What did you put on your last census form when it asked that very
>> pertinent question about race.

I note you skip those parts for which you have no answer.

>>
>>>>Those "boys at Oxford" and their ilk may be some of the real enemies
>>>>of freedom and democracy Sean.
>>>
>>>They may very well be. But they're also a great deal more authoritative
>>>on the English language than either of us.
>>
>>
>> That may or may not be the case, but in addition to whatever language
>> skills they may possess, they also have an unofficial agenda which has
>> the effect of stifling common sense and free speech - eventually
>> officially, just because they say so.
>>
>> It's the same with all PC, we don't know who is responsible for it
>> other than an amorphous 'they', but it ends up controlling our lives.
>> That is effectively introducing laws by unelected people and bodies.
>
>Yes Charles, your views on PC and the threat these nameless, faceless
>people pose is well documented here.

I'm delighted to hear it, some of us have got to stand up and be
counted.

>
>>>>Food for thought dear boy as you
>>>>attempt to ram home your dubious and temporary advantage on the back
>>>>of rampant PC.
>>>>
>>>>Do you *really* believe that citizenship of a country also confers a
>>>>national racial identity on its citizens? Or that race is only in the
>>>>mind and can be what people want it to be?
>>>
>>>Where have I claimed that?
>>
>> You said quite clearly:
>>
>> "A group of people united or classified together on the basis of
>> common history, nationality, or geographic distribution"
>>
>> Seems to suggest they are."
>
>Yes I did; I provided a definition that supported my hypothesis, nothing
>more.

You didn't present a "hypothesis", you simply presented a single
cherry-picked dictionary definition from a block of six, and have
developed your burgeoning treatise as the thread has developed, having
I suspect relied heavily on Google.

>
>Why don't you provide us with *your* definition of "race"?

I can do no better than quote the OED:

race /reis/ n

1. Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct
physical characteristics.

2. A tribe, nation, etc., regarded as of a distinct ethnic stock.

3. The fact or concept of division into races.

4. A genus, species, breed, or variety of animals, plants, or
micro-organisms.

5. A group of persons, animals, or plants connected by a common
descent.

6. Any great division of living creatures.
.

Relevant Pages

  • He can counter distinctive bibles, do you publish them?
    ... Other explicit required fits will make selfishly but personnels. ... Occasionally Iman will reserve the ... Afif's race. ... read you some of my common revenges. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Wales, the new England?
    ... That's rather clumsily put Sean. ... A group of persons, animals, or plants connected by a common ... that dictionaries and encyclopedia are fertile territory for the politically correct?) ... A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race. ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
  • Re: Obamas Granny
    ... yelling about race, race, race. ... If I were an Obama supporter, and he used to be my second choice but isn't ... people are adapting in various degrees to him being ... Ignorance is pretty common place even in Northern Cal. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Obamas Granny
    ... yelling about race, race, race. ... people are adapting in various degrees to him ... Not only that, but there are a great deal of uneducated, ignorant people ... Ignorance is pretty common ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: DNA pioneer James Watson suspended in farcical race row
    ... accurately pick humans with known genes in common has never been attempted. ... "Race" self-identification matches a known genetic cluster (bunch ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
Loading