Interesting scientific question...

[enyawd72]

In the interest of peace...I've deleted my original comments/questions. Sorry to anyone who was offended. I assure you it wasn't my intention.

[MegoSteve]

I'm not sure this is the place for this topic.

[GaryPlaysWithDolls]

Uh, well, toys sure are fun, huh?

[thunderbolt]

yeah, uhh ok.

So what kind of dog? And I would urge you to go shelter dog first. Petfinder.org is where I found Odie and Yogi.

[boss]

I don't think you're ready for a dog.

[SentientApe]

For more on this topic, please visit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

You might also want to read the book Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking by Stephen K. Campbell, if you are serious in asking these questions.

I'm not sure this is the place for this topic.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[SentientApe]

I don't think you're ready for a dog.

But I cannot leave this topic without tipping my hat to the BEST RESPONSE EVER.

[Mikey]

If I was a dog I think i'd be a Basset Hound

[enyawd72]

I don't think you're ready for a dog.

Based on what exactly? Me asking a perfectly logical question? The responses here just prove my point. WHY is this subject taboo? The article posted on scientific racism, while interesting, skirts the issue as well. You can look at the entire spectrum of dog breeds and say, this breed exhibits the highest intelligence, while this breed exhibits the lowest intelligence. This breed sheds, this breed doesn't. This breed is highly active, while this breed isn't...it doesn't mean any one is better than any other, that's just how they are. We humans are no different. We're still just animals, and nature's laws apply to us as well.

It's got nothing to do with racial superiority or inferiority, just recognizing that we are all different...each race possessing their own unique attributes.

No insult was intended.
If the mods think discussion is a no-no...please delete it or move it to the member's lounge with my apologies. Thanks!

[boss]

I tell you what... You catch a Bigfoot, you can keep it.

[Brazoo]

I think you're asking sincerely, and not trying to be offensive, and maybe not getting the weight of the issue that you're asking. But DUDE - this is really controversial stuff!

Here's my short answer:
Breeding is a totally different selective process - we artificially selected dogs for specific physical traits. Geographical separation caused different groups of people to take on different physical traits - but this is not in any way - NOT - breeding.

One of the big problems of this whole line of inquiry is that as people we tend to categorize things for reasons that end up being superficial. It's a general weakness in ALL people to do this - so I'm really not trying to be critical of you personally. For example - for centuries people categorized black people as one race - but the human species is MOST genetically diverse in Africa - even amongst groups of people who might look similar. There is a level where these distinctions of race become meaningless.

Obviously there are things like darker skinned people are less likely to get skin cancer, but when you're talking about disease that seems to target certain groups you're also often just looking at heredity.

[Brazoo]

Though this is controversial - and I think a political issue - I think there are times where political sensibilities affect legitimate lines scientific inquiry. But most of this stuff has been messed up going the other way. Racial prejudice has messed up centuries of scientific research in sometimes incredibly crazy ways. My take is this - maybe we should err on the cautious side for a few centuries just to even things out.

[enyawd72]

I think you're asking sincerely, and not trying to be offensive, and maybe not getting the weight of the issue that you're asking. But DUDE - this is really controversial stuff!

Here's my short answer:
Breeding is a totally different selective process - we artificially selected dogs for specific physical traits. Geographical separation caused different groups of people to take on different physical traits - but this is not in any way - NOT - breeding.

One of the big problems of this whole line of inquiry is that as people we tend to categorize things for reasons that end up being superficial. It's a general weakness in ALL people to do this - so I'm really not trying to be critical of you personally. For example - for centuries people categorized black people as one race - but the human species is MOST genetically diverse in Africa - even amongst groups of people who might look similar. There is a level where these distinctions of race become meaningless.

Obviously there are things like darker skinned people are less likely to get skin cancer, but when you're talking about disease that seems to target certain groups you're also often just looking at heredity.

Yeah, I didn't realize it was going to be such a touchy subject. I was trying to ask a genuine question that interests me, and totally not trying to offend anyone. I wasn't familiar with the term "scientific racism" before...it never even occured to me such things go on with scientific research today.

Maybe the mods should delete this discussion before someone gets upset. Again, I apologize.

[Mikey]

No need to apologize.

It's just a topic that can be misconstrued depending on ones outlook on racial diversity

[Mikey]

BTW, did I just say misconstrued ?

God, i've become such a nerd