>
> >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 developme
>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 explai
>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
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 flat-ea
>>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
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
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 l
> >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
Original Message-
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:
>
><<
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:
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" ca
11 matches
Mail list logo