So, when I was filling out the Community Survey thing for the census, they wanted to know all about the races in my family. I checked other and wrote in human. Anybody else?
Wow, you're clever.
Actually, "human" is a species, I would answer "none".
But if the question was asked for a passport or the medic card, or the driver's license, I would answer "caucasian", because even thought the question is flawed, it's asked just a means to identify the person.
But if the question was asked for a passport or the medic card, or the driver's license, I would answer "caucasian", because even thought the question is flawed, it's asked just a means to identify the person.
And it's probably illegal to nullify the answer.
I wasn't trying to be clever, but thanks for making a personal comment about me rather than just moving on to a post that held more interest for you.
If they had an additional question that read, "Do you think these race questions are stupid and that 'race' is a human social contrivance?" I would have answered yes and answered the race questions accurately. Since they didn't, I did what I did.
"The categories are designed for collecting data on the race and ethnicity of broad population groups in this country. They are based on social and political considerations -- not anthropological or scientific ones. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups.”
So is male pattern baldness...but it's ...related by common descent or heredity.
I suppose you could have looked up the way the census defines race before getting snarky.
Before you get all snarky, perhaps you should think for a moment about what it actually says and what I said.
1) The first part of my question that you quoted asks if I think the race questions are stupid. I believe they are stupid for precisely the reasons they give in their explanation. That they acknowledge the reasons doesn't make it any less stupid in my eyes.
2) It says that the categories are based on social and political considerations. It does not say that "race" itself is not scientific, only that these categories are not scientific. The implication is that there is, in fact, a scientific basis for race. I say there isn't, and that it's always a human social contrivance.
If you're going to be pedantic, do it right or don't do it at all.
How utterly childish and tedious.
2) It says that the categories are based on social and political considerations. It does not say that "race" itself is not scientific, only that these categories are not scientific. The implication is that there is, in fact, a scientific basis for race. I say there isn't, and that it's always a human social contrivance.
Yes. I can quantify the chemical makeup, shape, and dimensions. I'd call that scientific. How about you?Is there a "scientific basis" for spaghetti?
So blind people know not of race? How empty their lives must be.What do you even mean by a "scientific basis"? You can see the difference with your own bloody eyes.