PDA

View Full Version : What Terminology to use?



21wqre2
Wednesday, October 29th, 2003, 11:29 AM
I see the following traditional terms are used frequently on these forums: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and sometimes Australoid.
From the dictionary: 'They are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive.'

In addition the terms mongrel and half/mixed-breed are by definition used for animals or plants, not humans.

What are your opinions?

Loki
Wednesday, October 29th, 2003, 12:11 PM
I see the following traditional terms are used frequently on these forums: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and sometimes Australoid.
From the dictionary: 'They are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive.'

Their "offensiveness" has everything to do with the political climate of the day. They are still 100% valid, though.


In addition the terms mongrel and half/mixed-breed are by definition used for animals or plants, not humans.

What are your opinions?

Humans are animals.

21wqre2
Wednesday, October 29th, 2003, 12:32 PM
Their "offensiveness" has everything to do with the political climate of the day. They are still 100% valid, though.

Race: 'The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists.'


Humans are animals.

Animal: '1.A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
2.An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal. '

http://dictionary.reference.com

Loki
Wednesday, October 29th, 2003, 12:42 PM
Race: 'The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists.'

We know about genetics here at Skadi. Just browse our genetics subforum... you will realise that different races have different gene markers.



Animal: '1.A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
2.An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal. '

http://dictionary.reference.com

Thus, by your own quotation, humans are animals (ref.1). Ref. 2 is only applicable for religionists who somehow think that humans are in a class of their own. They are not. Humans are just one species of animal.

21wqre2
Wednesday, October 29th, 2003, 01:15 PM
We know about genetics here at Skadi. Just browse our genetics subforum... you will realise that different races have different gene markers..

I believe that when i see the dictionary definition change from what it is.


Thus, by your own quotation, humans are animals (ref.1). Ref. 2 is only applicable for religionists who somehow think that humans are in a class of their own. They are not. Humans are just one species of animal.

The first pointer is the definition of an animal, the second pointer then explains humans are an exception of this. Religionists are not even mentioned.