RE: non-racial subjective observation - flame proofing

["david neves" <grub@mail.utexas.edu>]

> It appears my thinking on genetic memory has been interpreted to apply
> some negative racial tone that flat out doesn't exist.

  (snip)

> So, apparently the difference in the 'races' of
> dogs is real. Is that also politically incorrect as well? If so, fine. I
> see no advantage in pretending to see no seperation within a given
> species, even if one exists. Is that science, or butt-kissing to keep
> that grant money rolling in? Have we all become so cowardly as to dismiss
> any idea that the actual proveable difference in 'races' exists? If that
> makes me a racist in your eyes then gosh I'm sorry,,,, NOT!  Isn't the
> free expression of thought much more valuable than the effort to become
> part of the accepted mainstream? I'm not talkin'  Hitler's Germany here,
> just a inter-species differnece. Not superiority as a race, but obvious
> observable differences. Like the delivery or not, like the tone or not,
> like the idea or not the fact reamins a fact. Behaviors, instincts, or
> talents are inheirited as much as my dogs black coat were.

(snip)

> I am not a racist and I reject the implication that 'genetic memory' is a
> master race line of thought.

  I thiink the problem was not that you were a racist or a nazi, but that an
uninformed white supremicist (or muslim fanatic or christian fanatic or any
other extremist group) who sees an idea like genetic memory validated in a
scientific context could TWIST that idea.  While neither you nor science
would judge any given genetic memory as better, nothing could prevent a
demogogue from doing so.  The validating power of science is greater than
many scientists realize, and EVERYONE needs to be careful not to provide
ammunition to hate groups, HOWEVER UNINTENTIONAL!

  Now, I realize that you (Lightwaves) will probably flame me severely.  But
in my defense, I posted less for the content of what you said than the
manner in which you said it.  I did not see any posts deserving such a
vehement response.  If you received mail flaming you, you should have
responded privately.  But for public posts please remain civil.  Being snide
or angry or hateful or ultra-defensive won't win any arguments.

  Sorry for the soapbox from a lurker, but I've enjoyed this list a lot for
the past few months, and mainly because it has been a polite and friendly
discussion board.  Thanks for listening.

Grub@mail.utexas.edu