War on white people?

[Sun Wukong]

Mav, I've seen you post that so much, I'm gonna have the words "It's YOUR fucking move" stuck in my head the entire night.

Good. My goal is to get you to fall asleep and have a nightmare where I stalk you, and appear next to you from the shadows screaming "It's YOUR fucking move!"

Followed by a jolly game of Chess.

[MERIZoC]

Good. My goal is to get you to fall asleep and have a nightmare where I stalk you, and appear next to you from the shadows screaming "It's YOUR fucking move!"

Followed by a jolly game of Chess.

Most. Stressful. Chess match. Ever.

[Mavorpen]

Good. My goal is to get you to fall asleep and have a nightmare where I stalk you, and appear next to you from the shadows screaming "It's YOUR fucking move!"

Followed by a jolly game of Chess.

I should start a television show about Chess. I can be the Gordon Ramsay of chess and continuously belittle and annoy the contestants. Just imagine "It's YOUR fucking move!" being repeated in a Scottish accent every time someone takes more than 1 minute to make a move.

[Sun Wukong]

Followed by a jolly game of Chess.

Most. Stressful. Chess match. Ever.

Well, at least it's not a sex-dream.

...probably.

[Neutraligon]

Followed by a jolly game of Chess.

I should start a television show about Chess. I can be the Gordon Ramsay of chess and continuously belittle and annoy the contestants. Just imagine "It's YOUR fucking move!" being repeated in a Scottish accent every time someone takes more than 1 minute to make a move.

I find it interesting that the paper itself notes that the finding are preliminary, and face what seem to be rather severe limitations including issues of sample size as well as the issue of possibly not finding the mediating factor.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I feel like I'm Richard Dawkins interviewing Wendy Wright. They both continuously shout "WHERE IS UR EVIDENCE!" even though I've given it to them several times over.

Your evidence is bullshit. Evolution can be explained fairly easily, and is completely obvious. The hypothesis that a fuckload of people are willing to compromise justice and public safety to hurt a politically favored class of people is not obvious, and is in fact completely counterintuitive.

Yea, keep telling yourself that while you sleep at night.

The fact is you have not disproven any of our claims and all your claims have been bullshit racialist theories from 300 years ago which have no grounding in either biology, political science, or sociology.

[Mavorpen]

I should start a television show about Chess. I can be the Gordon Ramsay of chess and continuously belittle and annoy the contestants. Just imagine "It's YOUR fucking move!" being repeated in a Scottish accent every time someone takes more than 1 minute to make a move.

I find it interesting that the paper itself notes that the finding are preliminary, and face what seem to be rather severe limitations including issues of sample size.

Apparently, pointing out that the paper doesn't actually claim what he thinks it claims is irrelevant. he only posted it, because, and I quote:

The reason I cited that study despite it making excuses for the favored races was because it had useful data.

In other words, he's selectively picking what he accepts in that source.

Data that he believes supports him? It's true and entirely factual. Data that doesn't? It's LIBURUL BULLSHIET!!!11oneone!!

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Your hypothesis adds a factor to issue, 'racial disparities', therefore, unless you can find convincing evidence I am wrong, Occam's Razor gives me victory.

'Discrimination' is not a legitimate complaint, it is pure rationalization, something which people do in order to make themselves feel better when they commit something immoral, like lying.

Occam's Razor doesn't give you shit, nor does it address any of his rebuttals to your stupid, vapid, and childish theory of rationalization of racism. Also, you do understand your own study doesn't address that they lie, simply that they rescind their answers in SUBSEQUENT POLLS (meaning AFTER the first poll) because of several reasons.

I mean, how ridiculously vapid, uncomprehensible, and utterly low opinions will you continue to stoop down to?

At this point you're either honestly have NEVER even touched a biology book in your life, skipped all your social sciences classes or slept right the fuck through them, or you're just trying to think that we're all stupid assholes that we cannot read your own sources and you somehow have some mystical insight that not even the researchers even acknowledged in their research. So which is it? Because at this point I don't even think you have the qualifications to argue anymore.

[Neutraligon]

Your hypothesis adds a factor to issue, 'racial disparities', therefore, unless you can find convincing evidence I am wrong, Occam's Razor gives me victory.

'Discrimination' is not a legitimate complaint, it is pure rationalization, something which people do in order to make themselves feel better when they commit something immoral, like lying.

Occam's Razor doesn't give you shit, nor does it address any of his rebuttals to your stupid, vapid, and childish theory of rationalization of racism. Also, you do understand your own study doesn't address that they lie, simply that they rescind their answers in SUBSEQUENT POLLS (meaning AFTER the first poll) because of several reasons.

I mean, how ridiculously vapid, uncomprehensible, and utterly low opinions will you continue to stoop down to?

At this point you're either honestly have NEVER even touched a biology book in your life, skipped all your social sciences classes or slept right the fuck through them, or you're just trying to think that we're all stupid assholes that we cannot read your own sources and you somehow have some mystical insight that not even the researchers even acknowledged in their research. So which is it?

We could just be dealing with confirmation bias.

[Wolffbaden]

Just going to point a few things out here that I've noticed after skimming through this thread; late as hell, but I don't care.

Ah yes "race" we have long dismissed such superstitious pseudoscience.

Actually no. There are distinctive genetic, physical, cultural, geographical, and historical characteristics which do separate us into different and distinguishable groups of human beings, whether you want to admit it or not. We are not all alike physically, even though we do have similarities, and some of us have similarities which cluster us together moreso into groups with others who share those similarities than others do, who share more similarities with other groups that cause them to cluster in with them.

Race concerns our similarities as much as it concerns our differences.

Race isn't based on DNA testing, it's based on physical characteristics alone. That's why race is unscientific and pointless.

This is simply incorrect. Your physical characteristics (your skin color, hair color, eye color, height, nose shape, etc.) are all determined by your DNA. So in that sense alone, no, race is actually a very scientific and useful way to classify people. Additionally, race isn't just based of physical characteristics, like I pointed out above.

[Mavorpen]

This is simply incorrect. Your physical characteristics (your skin color, hair color, eye color, height, nose shape, etc.) are all determined by your DNA. So in that sense alone, no, race is actually a very scientific and useful way to classify people. Additionally, race isn't just based of physical characteristics, like I pointed out above.

Name one gene and subsequent trait that exists in one race and is exclusive in all other races.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

We could just be dealing with confirmation bias.

Problem with that being that I have never, ever heard someone be so utterly wrong while ignoring the fact they are wrong. And I am assuming he at least graduated with a GDE given compulsory education is until 12th grade. Shit, not even Amish people are so utterly wrong, and they don't even go to school all the 12 grades!

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Race isn't based on DNA testing, it's based on physical characteristics alone. That's why race is unscientific and pointless.

This is simply incorrect. Your physical characteristics (your skin color, hair color, eye color, height, nose shape, etc.) are all determined by your DNA. So in that sense alone, no, race is actually a very scientific and useful way to classify people. Additionally, race isn't just based of physical characteristics, like I pointed out above.

Is it? Or is it just 18th century bullshit to make people THINK white people are the best?!

[Othelos]

We could just be dealing with confirmation bias.

Problem with that being that I have never, ever heard someone be so utterly wrong while ignoring the fact they are wrong. And I am assuming he at least graduated with a GDE given compulsory education is until 12th grade. Shit, not even Amish people are so utterly wrong, and they don't even go to school all the 12 grades!

He's done the same on other threads, so I'm not really surprised, honestly.

[Othelos]

This is simply incorrect. Your physical characteristics (your skin color, hair color, eye color, height, nose shape, etc.) are all determined by your DNA. So in that sense alone, no, race is actually a very scientific and useful way to classify people. Additionally, race isn't just based of physical characteristics, like I pointed out above.

Is it? Or is it just 18th century bullshit to make people THINK white people are the best?!

Plus, there aren't clear boundaries in racial classification, so it's not really scientific at all.

[Wolffbaden]

This is simply incorrect. Your physical characteristics (your skin color, hair color, eye color, height, nose shape, etc.) are all determined by your DNA. So in that sense alone, no, race is actually a very scientific and useful way to classify people. Additionally, race isn't just based off physical characteristics, like I pointed out above.

Name one gene and subsequent trait that exists in one race and is exclusive in all other races.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

This isn't how it works.

Genetically, we have the ability to research and classify individuals into different groups when we examine the frequency of alleles (forms a gene) within populations and the observable phenotypic traits which result from them (like eye color, skin color, and hair color for example). The frequency of alleles clusters differently for different populations, and there do exist distinct clusters between certain groups of people. There's several correlations to be noted here, but the main one is this: greater variation comes with greater geographic distances between clusters while lower variation (greater similarity) comes with lower geographic distances (closer proximity). Populations which share similar frequencies of similar traits are more closely related to one another compared to populations which have more divergent frequencies of the same traits; you could divide people up racially based off of this alone (just how they look; and different clusters of people do indeed have distinguishing characteristics from one another), but, again, that's not how races are divided up.

This is simply incorrect. Your physical characteristics (your skin color, hair color, eye color, height, nose shape, etc.) are all determined by your DNA. So in that sense alone, no, race is actually a very scientific and useful way to classify people. Additionally, race isn't just based of physical characteristics, like I pointed out above.

Is it? Or is it just 18th century bullshit to make people THINK white people are the best?!

No, it isn't. It's about trying to figure out how exactly Sub-Saharan Africans are different from Caucasoids, how exactly Caucasoids are different from Northeast Asian Arctics, Northeast Asian Arctics from Southern Mongoloids, etc. And not only how exactly they're different, but why they're different, which is funnily enough not only tied into genetics, but archaeology, linguistics, history, geography... basically all those other things I listed off concerning how race is not just based off of physical characteristics alone.

People can argue we're all the same all they want, but that's simply not true. We are similar, but we are not all alike as individuals, and we are most certainly not all alike as members of a specific cluster group; physical characteristics alone tell us we're different, as any person with two functional eyes can see, and the scientific part comes into play in determining how exactly we're different and why exactly we're different.

And that's how simple it is.

[Dyakovo]

Is it? Or is it just 18th century bullshit to make people THINK white people are the best?!

No, it isn't. It's about trying to figure out how exactly Sub-Saharan Africans are different from Caucasoids, how exactly Caucasoids are different from Northeast Asian Arctics, Northeast Asian Arctics from Southern Mongoloids, etc. And not only how exactly they're different, but why they're different, which is funnily enough not only tied into genetics, but archaeology, linguistics, history, geography... basically all those other things I listed off concerning how race is not just based off of physical characteristics alone.

People can argue we're all the same all they want, but that's simply not true. We are similar, but we are not all alike as individuals, and we are most certainly not all alike as members of a specific cluster group; physical characteristics alone tell us we're different, as any person with two functional eyes can see, and the scientific part comes into play in determining how exactly we're different and why exactly we're different.

And that's how simple it is.

It sure is simple. Simply wrong, that is.
There is more genetic diversity within 'races' than between them.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, it isn't. It's about trying to figure out how exactly Sub-Saharan Africans are different from Caucasoids, how exactly Caucasoids are different from Northeast Asian Arctics, Northeast Asian Arctics from Southern Mongoloids, etc. And not only how exactly they're different, but why they're different, which is funnily enough not only tied into genetics, but archaeology, linguistics, history, geography... basically all those other things I listed off concerning how race is not just based off of physical characteristics alone.

People can argue we're all the same all they want, but that's simply not true. We are similar, but we are not all alike as individuals, and we are most certainly not all alike as members of a specific cluster group; physical characteristics alone tell us we're different, as any person with two functional eyes can see, and the scientific part comes into play in determining how exactly we're different and why exactly we're different.

And that's how simple it is.

While you are making a good case for racialism, it was already tried by people 300 years ago. What you're describing with the social sciences - which is the apex of your argument - is about CULTURAL and ETHNIC differences across populations, not so much genetics or races. Which is simply wrong.

Try again.

[Wolffbaden]

No, it isn't. It's about trying to figure out how exactly Sub-Saharan Africans are different from Caucasoids, how exactly Caucasoids are different from Northeast Asian Arctics, Northeast Asian Arctics from Southern Mongoloids, etc. And not only how exactly they're different, but why they're different, which is funnily enough not only tied into genetics, but archaeology, linguistics, history, geography... basically all those other things I listed off concerning how race is not just based off of physical characteristics alone.

People can argue we're all the same all they want, but that's simply not true. We are similar, but we are not all alike as individuals, and we are most certainly not all alike as members of a specific cluster group; physical characteristics alone tell us we're different, as any person with two functional eyes can see, and the scientific part comes into play in determining how exactly we're different and why exactly we're different.

And that's how simple it is.

It sure is simple. Simply wrong, that is.
There is more genetic diversity within 'races' than between them.

You're wrong. And so is Lewontin. His argument on diversity was refuted by the British geneticist Anthony Edwards 11 years ago. Again, like I already pointed out, differences in the frequency of alleles are correlated across populations. The frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations. We can actually measure the frequency by examining where the loci (the actual location on a chromosome) is, and have been doing so for quite some time now.

No, it isn't. It's about trying to figure out how exactly Sub-Saharan Africans are different from Caucasoids, how exactly Caucasoids are different from Northeast Asian Arctics, Northeast Asian Arctics from Southern Mongoloids, etc. And not only how exactly they're different, but why they're different, which is funnily enough not only tied into genetics, but archaeology, linguistics, history, geography... basically all those other things I listed off concerning how race is not just based off of physical characteristics alone.

People can argue we're all the same all they want, but that's simply not true. We are similar, but we are not all alike as individuals, and we are most certainly not all alike as members of a specific cluster group; physical characteristics alone tell us we're different, as any person with two functional eyes can see, and the scientific part comes into play in determining how exactly we're different and why exactly we're different.

And that's how simple it is.

While you are making a good case for racialism, it was already tried by people 300 years ago. What you're describing with the social sciences - which is the apex of your argument - is about CULTURAL and ETHNIC differences across populations, not so much genetics or races. Which is simply wrong.

Try again.

How exactly is that a "good case for racialism"? It's not asserting the superiority for any one race over the others; it's trying to determine why clusters are distinct and what exactly makes them distinct. It's as much a question of genetics, which you clearly know absolutely nothing of as you made no attempt to refute the scientific portion of my argument, as it is of linguistics, archaeology, geography, history, etc.

Rhetorical question. It's not a "good case for rationalism". It's a good scientific question.

EDIT:

I'd suggest you study the work of Dr. Cavalli-Sforza in order to understand how this works, Soldati. He did a study in 1994 that studied genetic distance between races just by examining blood polymorphisms, and he outlines the importance of examining linguistics, the development of agriculture and other such items of historical interest, culture, etc. in the process of his work. No "racialism" anywhere.

[Dyakovo]

It sure is simple. Simply wrong, that is.
There is more genetic diversity within 'races' than between them.

You're wrong. And so is Lewontin. His argument on diversity was refuted by the British geneticist Anthony Edwards 11 years ago. Again, like I already pointed out, differences in the frequency of alleles are correlated across populations. The frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations. We can actually measure the frequency by examining where the loci (the actual location on a chromosome) is, and have been doing so for quite some time now.

Except not.

[Wolffbaden]

You're wrong. And so is Lewontin. His argument on diversity was refuted by the British geneticist Anthony Edwards 11 years ago. Again, like I already pointed out, differences in the frequency of alleles are correlated across populations. The frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations. We can actually measure the frequency by examining where the loci (the actual location on a chromosome) is, and have been doing so for quite some time now.

Except not.

Yeah, you are wrong. And so is Lewontin. Lewontin specifically claimed in his original study and I quote:

"Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance."

This is diversity argument of his is, again wrong. The frequency of alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations. The same classification they're referring to here, you know, "races", is determined by studying the different loci of alleles on chromosomes; study enough of them, as Dr. Edwards discovered, and the probability of misclassifying will inevitably reach 0.

Congrats on linking to a study concerning genetic similarities which even admits that people can be classified into different population clusters based off their genetics by the way:

"The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations. Both findings can be obtained from the same data set, using the same number of polymorphic loci."

EDIT:

Do you understand now?

[Dyakovo]

Except not.

Yeah, you are wrong. And so is Lewontin. Lewontin specifically claimed in his original study and I quote:

"Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance."

This is diversity argument of his is, again wrong. The frequency of alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations. The same classification they're referring to here, you know, "races", is determined by studying the different loci of alleles on chromosomes; study enough of them, as Dr. Edwards discovered, and the probability of classifying will inevitably reach 0.

Congrats on linking to a study concerning genetic similarities which even admits that people can be classified into different population clusters based off their genetics by the way:

"The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations. Both findings can be obtained from the same data set, using the same number of polymorphic loci."

Didn't bother reading the whole thing, did you?

[Wolffbaden]

Yeah, you are wrong. And so is Lewontin. Lewontin specifically claimed in his original study and I quote:



This is diversity argument of his is, again wrong. The frequency of alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations. The same classification they're referring to here, you know, "races", is determined by studying the different loci of alleles on chromosomes; study enough of them, as Dr. Edwards discovered, and the probability of classifying will inevitably reach 0.

Congrats on linking to a study concerning genetic similarities which even admits that people can be classified into different population clusters based off their genetics by the way:

Didn't bother reading the whole thing, did you?

"The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them."

You can correctly classify people into distinct clusters based off of their genetics, given enough genetic data, although you don't just base it off genetics. You also base it off of their linguistics, cultural characteristics, history, geography, etc.

You didn't bother reading any of Dr. Cavalli-Sforza's study on how this works, did you lol?

[Dyakovo]

Didn't bother reading the whole thing, did you?

"The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them."

You can correctly classify people into distinct clusters based off of their genetics, given enough genetic data, although you don't just base it off genetics. You also base it off of their linguistics, cultural characteristics, history, geography, etc.

You didn't bother reading any of Dr. Carlo-Sforza's study on how this works, did you lol?

[Esternial]

Didn't bother reading the whole thing, did you?

"The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them."

You can correctly classify people into distinct clusters based off of their genetics, given enough genetic data, although you don't just base it off genetics. You also base it off of their linguistics, cultural characteristics, history, geography, etc.

You didn't bother reading any of Dr. Carlo-Sforza's study on how this works, did you lol?

Problem being that we don't tend to have a gene map of every person on the planet to accurately determine one's race, since in some cases a person that seems to be belong to one race may have more traits that are assigned to another.

Which happens because people fuck with other people.

Also, what would you call a family of "Caucasians" that has several generations in South Africa, adopting their linguistics characteristics, history, geography, etc. and 'mingling' with the local population that also consists of white people alongside Africans?