You "gather"? In truth you haven't a clue as to
either what our "policies" are or how they are
"determined". Our relation to the 'bigwigs' is
similar to yours with dead Trotskyists. We are
motivated by their interests, and we try to avoid
offending them.
To take the infamous example of trade,
Brad,can you please read the rest of Steve's post, or the sentence that
prior to the sentence you cite? since Steve is not here, I can not talk
on behalf of him, but his work is an excellent piece in Marxian sociology.
Here's a precious snippet from this nitwit (Steve Rosenthal)
from a couple
On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
the socio-biological claim that people differ because they differ
genetically is called RACISM, which is what Wilson does eventually.
This is the crux of the matter. If one supposes that culture is
determined
by genes, then one is left explaining
Brad,can you please read the rest of Steve's post, or the sentence that
prior to the sentence you cite? since Steve is not here, I can not talk
on behalf of him, but his work is an excellent piece in Marxian sociology.
Here's a precious snippet from this nitwit (Steve Rosenthal)
from a couple of
In a message dated 00-04-09 00:04:25 EDT, you write:
the socio-biological claim that
people differ because they differ genetically is called RACISM,
No it's not. It would be racist (and genetically illiterate, for the most
part) to say that some groups of people are inferior to another
. . . This line of attack against the Clintonites is being led by Dick
Gephardt and the business and big labor forces behind him. The
Economic Policy Institute (EPI), whose funding comes from the
Rockefeller Foundation, C.S. Mott (GM), Russell Sage (Cabot gas and
banking money), sets forth
ge-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sunday, April 09, 2000 10:46 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:17872] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: genome news (fwd)
In a message dated 00-04-09 00:04:25 EDT, you write:
the socio-biological claim that
people differ beca
In a message dated 00-04-09 12:38:32 EDT, you write:
the
sentence that includes the categories "Black people" and "whites"
uncritically assumes that these term themselves are unproblematic with
regard to the very issues the sentence is discussing. which individuals end
up in the "Black"
This is the heart of the matter; very clear and to the point!
Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:
I do not believe sociobiology can be progressive. It is inherently
reactionary, no matter what spin its advocates put to it. And even if we
could put politics aside (in some theoretical world) it is
Title: Re: genome news (fwd)
Greetings Economists,
JKS writes in reply to Mines,
JKS,
No it's not. It would be racist (and genetically illiterate, for the most
part) to say that some groups of people are inferior to another because of
their genes, but it is not racist to say, for example
Brad,can you please read the rest of Steve's post, or the sentence that
prior to the sentence you cite? since Steve is not here, I can not talk
on behalf of him, but his work is an excellent piece in Marxian
sociology.
Here's a precious snippet from this nitwit (Steve Rosenthal)
from a couple
MD:
. . . What I understand is that
Economic Policy Institute may have a finger in socio-biological research . .
.
We don't do sociology we don't do biology. I would
wager that the word 'socio-biology' does not appear
in one EPI publication. I don't even know what it
means, but if you don't
version of right wing and neo-liberalism, which
approves my claim that socio-biology is inherently a reactionary science.
Mine
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 11:02:54 -0700
From: Doyle Saylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
inherently a reactionary science.
Mine
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 11:02:54 -0700
From: Doyle Saylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:17884] Re: genome news (fwd)
Greetings Economists,
JKS writes in reply
Mine. You still haven't answered Brad's point. S.R. either tells a
deliberate
lie or he doesn't know what he is talking about. Wilson did not "remake
himself"
okey!!! Whoever calls Steven Rosenthal a "lier" either does not have
any slightest notion of who Steven Rosenthal is or has not digested
We're at an impasse here. Rosenthal is not here. Nor is Wilson. I wonder
however about how many people today would change their ideas just because
somebody remains unnamed showed that their ideas supported capitalism.
Perhaps the majority of academics would wear
the defense of capitalism as a
Brad,can you please read the rest of Steve's post, or the sentence that
prior to the sentence you cite? since Steve is not here, I can not talk
on behalf of him, but his work is an excellent piece in Marxian sociology.
moreover, it is a serious critique of socio-biological assumptions about
Brad,can you please read the rest of Steve's post, or the sentence that
prior to the sentence you cite? since Steve is not here, I can not talk
on behalf of him, but his work is an excellent piece in Marxian sociology.
Steve wrote:
Because of these sharp
critiques, Wilson reinvented himself
Steve wrote:
Because of these sharp
critiques, Wilson reinvented himself as an
environmentalist concerned about bio-diversity.
Brad replied:
If it is an excellent piece of Marxian sociology, why does it make
false claims about Wilson's intellectual development?
Either Steve
For the record, the Steve referred to below is Steve Rosenthal, not me...
Steve (The "PEN Steve")
Stephen Philion
Lecturer/PhD Candidate
Department of Sociology
2424 Maile Way
Social Sciences Bldg. # 247
Honolulu, HI 96822
On Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
Steve wrote:
But if we can get away from genetic determinism, there does not seem to
to be anything wrong studying the genome.
Jim Devine.
It depends. genetics is a higly political issue, and I would add, biology
can not be seperated from ideology. If we once start studying the genome,
then we have to
21 matches
Mail list logo
