What's your favorite color?

[Sammy-San]

Orange is a mix of red and yellow. Brown is a mix of red, yellow and blue. So sure, in a technical sense,
red hair is red. But honestly my eyes don't see RED as the primary color, they see orange. Light orange and dark orange.

Crimson could be called blue that is mostly red, but we'd usually say red with a touch of blue.

With red hair, I would say that it's reddish-orange. It looks more orange to me than red.

Can we agree it doesn't matter if her hair is red or orange?

 

[Henaynei]

I don't have just one - it really is any of the "jewel tones" of green, blue, purple (and some reds)... including mauve, turquoise, emerald, eggplant, royal blue, ruby etc.... just not yellows, oranges or pinks - although I do like "old" or "antique" rose...

 

[Sammy-San]

I don't have just one - it really is any of the "jewel tones" of green, blue, purple (and some reds)... including mauve, turquoise, emerald, eggplant, royal blue, ruby etc.... just not yellows, oranges or pinks - although I do like "old" or "antique" rose...

Do you think it is possible to see blue yellow or red green? Impossible color - Wikipedia

 

[KatieMomandStudent]

#5. Really love turquoise. I don't have a reason to give. It just makes me happy.

 

[Sammy-San]

#5. Really love turquoise. I don't have a reason to give. It just makes me happy.

Is that more blue or green?

 

[Sammy-San]

I don't have just one - it really is any of the "jewel tones" of green, blue, purple (and some reds)... including mauve, turquoise, emerald, eggplant, royal blue, ruby etc.... just not yellows, oranges or pinks - although I do like "old" or "antique" rose...

What does jewel tones meaning?

 

[KatieMomandStudent]

Is that more blue or green?

Speaking of the stone, shades can really go either way, but I prefer the blue.

 

[Vicomte13]

Can we agree it doesn't matter if her hair is red or orange?

Sure

 

[Sammy-San]

Sure

Would you most people say its red?

 

[Sammy-San]

Speaking of the stone, shades can really go either way, but I prefer the blue.

What does jewel tone mean?

 

[KatieMomandStudent]

What does jewel tone mean?

Not really sure. Wasn't my comment. I would assume tones of different gems and stones.

 

[Sammy-San]

Not really sure. Wasn't my comment. I would assume tones of different gems and stones.

Like bright blue or green?

 

[KatieMomandStudent]

Like bright blue or green?

Gems and stones could really be just about any color unless you get a little more specific.

 

[Henaynei]

What does jewel tones meaning?

Jewel Tones

 

[Vicomte13]

Would you most people say its red?

Sure. I call orange hair "red", just as I call pink skin "white" and brown skin "black". I call light-yellowish-brown eyes "hazel", even though hazelnuts are rather darkish brown.

I use words in conversation the way they are used in the language. But I recognize that these word labels are inaccurate. Just because we CALL beige skin "white" doesn't make it white, and calling people "black" doesn't make them really black.

The approximate use of words doesn't bother me, but it doesn't fix reality either. For example, it doesn't bother me when people who are being friendly call me "brother", even though I am not their brother.

But it DOES bother me a bit when people won't move off of their conventional thinking when discussing something that is LITERALLY true, and rather important.

Example, we're not all brothers, but we ARE all cousins. Literally. Whether you're a Young Earth Creationist or an Old Earth Evolutionists who believes we come from chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve, it is nevertheless true that we, as a species, descend from a breeding pair. And that makes us all LITERALLY cousins, by the blood. EVERYBODY is family, by the blood.

This is so. Which means that the most bitter racists have all of the people they hate as their cousins by the blood, and that it is completely indisputable as a matter of biological fact.
That's important to me.

 

[Sammy-San]

Sure. I call orange hair "red", just as I call pink skin "white" and brown skin "black". I call light-yellowish-brown eyes "hazel", even though hazelnuts are rather darkish brown.

I use words in conversation the way they are used in the language. But I recognize that these word labels are inaccurate. Just because we CALL beige skin "white" doesn't make it white, and calling people "black" doesn't make them really black.

The approximate use of words doesn't bother me, but it doesn't fix reality either. For example, it doesn't bother me when people who are being friendly call me "brother", even though I am not their brother.

But it DOES bother me a bit when people won't move off of their conventional thinking when discussing something that is LITERALLY true, and rather important.

Example, we're not all brothers, but we ARE all cousins. Literally. Whether you're a Young Earth Creationist or an Old Earth Evolutionists who believes we come from chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve, it is nevertheless true that we, as a species, descend from a breeding pair. And that makes us all LITERALLY cousins, by the blood. EVERYBODY is family, by the blood.

This is so. Which means that the most bitter racists have all of the people they hate as their cousins by the blood, and that it is completely indisputable as a matter of biological fact.
That's important to me.

Is it bibical to say that there is nor race?

Brother in that context is either metaphorical to be friendly.

 

[Vicomte13]

Is it bibical to say that there is nor race?

Brother in that context is either metaphorical to be friendly.

What does "Biblical" mean in that context? We are all literally the descendants of Adam and Eve, and of Noah and his wife. We all have two sets of common grandparents, which means that we are all, of whatever race, literally cousins. That is certainly biblical, and it is unbiblical to say that we are not.

 

[Sammy-San]

What does "Biblical" mean in that context. We are all literally the descendants of Adam and Eve, and of Noah and his wife. We all have two sets of common grandparents, which means that we are all, of whatever race, literally cousins. That is certainly biblical, and it is unbiblical to say that we are not.

So Adam and Eve are our parents?

 

[Vicomte13]

So Adam and Eve are our parents?

Either Biblical Adam and Eve, or Chromosomal Adam and Mitochodrial Eve, absolutely. They are our many-times great-grandparents. Which makes us all cousins.

The Biblical story need not be true for biological Adam and Eve (chromosomal and mitochondrial, respectively) to be true. So whether you're a scientist or a Young Earth Creationist, your belief system ties you to an original father and mother of the species, from whom we are all descended.

If the Biblical story is true, then we are ALSO all descended from Noah and his wife (Naamah, granddaughter of Cain in some accounts). Noah and Naamah were the parents of Ham, Shem and Japheth, and from them and their wives came all of humanity after the Flood. So we all have TWO common sets of grandparents, if the Biblical story is true: Adam and Eve, and Noah and Naamah, and more than that: Naamah's parents and Noah's mother and father are also our common ancestors. In fact, we are all descended from ALL of the named patriarchs before the Flood, because Noah is, and he is our common grandfather.

If one rejects the Flood story and the Garden of Eden, one is still stuck with Mitochondrial Eve and Chromosomal Adam, and we're still all cousins, first cousins, how ever many times removed.

 

[Sammy-San]

You mean the dead-zombie-flesh colored? That whitish-grey? I guess I'd call that "sickly white".

You don't find the term ivory appropriate?