War on white people?

[Condunum]

As they were in Christian Europe. In fact, worse so in Europe. Jewish people have a long history of being discriminated against by everyone ever.

They were discriminated in Europe, but not worse than in the Islamic world (another example of the bias). The fact that they managed to live in Europe in a larger number than in the Islamic world (also saying for the pre-WW2 period) just prooves that the Islamic rule was not worser or better than the Christian rule.

Never mind that the center of Jewish society was in Babylonia (Iraq) until the 1200's, through the entire Islamic Golden Age. Jewish people in Palestine still controlled the majority of commerce. Many Jewish people served in the Fatimid Caliphate. By all standards of the time, Jewish people thrived during the golden age.

Hell, Jewish people even fought on the side of their Muslim brothers during the crusades, only to be lit ablaze in their Synagogues by the Crusaders.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Bullshit. The land was not originally Christian. It was first Jewish, then part of the Roman Empire but left pretty much alone until 68 AD; then a part of the Byzantine empire (but still Jewish) and even then taken over by the Muslims during the conquest of Syria in 636 AD. It remained as such until the Crusaders came along and established the "Kingdom of Jerusalem" (which is the most stupid name for a kingdom ever).

You left out the Bar Kochba Revolt in the 130s, after which the Jews were expelled from Judaea and the area renamed Syria Palaestina. This is considered the beginning of the Jewish diaspora. Did Jews remain in Palestine? Yes, some, but as a distinct minority. After the Empire became Christian the majority of the people throughout the Levant were Christians. There wasn't a majority Jewish state there until the creation of Israel.

Well, I really wasn't arsed to go through the entire history in a single post

But yes, you're right about that one.

[Geilinor]

Bullshit. The land was not originally Christian. It was first Jewish, then part of the Roman Empire but left pretty much alone until 68 AD; then a part of the Byzantine empire (but still Jewish) and even then taken over by the Muslims during the conquest of Syria in 636 AD. It remained as such until the Crusaders came along and established the "Kingdom of Jerusalem" (which is the most stupid name for a kingdom ever).

True, but the Jews had no power there [in the Holy land] and were also discriminated by Muslims. From their point of view it was egal who ever was charge of the land.

Land doesn't originally belong to anyone. The entire concept of original ownership is flawed.

[Scholmeria]

....

I am to lazy to answer to your examples of very awfull knowledge so I will just left sources here.

There you have Ottoman "tolerance": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_Tower

Inqisition was not that bad says the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/j ... cationnews
Only 12,500 executed people in the whole 300 years. Compare that there were more people killed in the Red terror in Spain in the 1930s.

Of couse the liberals want to make it as if there were millions killed by the Inqusution.

[The Land of Truth]

True, but the Jews had no power there [in the Holy land] and were also discriminated by Muslims. From their point of view it was egal who ever was charge of the land.

Land doesn't originally belong to anyone. The entire concept of original ownership is flawed.

Speaking in the geopolitical context of the time, we be.

[Condunum]

True, but the Jews had no power there [in the Holy land] and were also discriminated by Muslims. From their point of view it was egal who ever was charge of the land.

Land doesn't originally belong to anyone. The entire concept of original ownership is flawed.

Land belongs to anyone who can make a claim and maintain control of the land. The concept isn't flawed.

[The Land of Truth]

....

I am to lazy to answer to your examples of very awfull knowledge so I will just left sources here.

There you have Ottoman "tolerance": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_Tower

Inqisition was not that bad says the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/j ... cationnews
Only 12,500 executed people in the whole 300 years. Compare that there were more people killed in the Red terror in Spain in the 1930s.

Of couse the liberals want to make it as if there were millions killed by the Inqusution.

Quote me where it says "genocide" anywhere on that page.

Only 12,500 people?! Well, damn, I guess they were just goddamn saints, weren't they. It's not how many people the Inquisition killed that's the issue, it who and why (and the entire point of the Inquisitions were to systematically seek out and murder heretics and threats to the Church's political power). It's not the death toll, it's the fact that it happened in the first place. Furthermore, what does Spain's Red Terror centuries later have to do with anything? Seriously, stop comparing things that have nothing in common.

[Mavorpen]

This isn't how it works.

No, that is, in fact, how cladistics 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;

Let me stop you right here for a second.

Why are you suddenly shifting the goal posts? We aren't talking about populations. Populations are a legitimate, observable phenomenon. No one, utterly no one, is disputing the existence of populations. What I dispute is "race," which you claim to be scientific and a legitimate form of cladistics. Biologists take cladistics very seriously, and if you want them to take "race" seriously from a genetic standpoint, you need to name a genetic and subsequent trait that is found ONLY within one race and not in any other. That is the ONLY way to make distinct, clear cut groups that do not overlap.

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.

No, that is in fact how they are divided up. So again, name me one gene and subsequent trait only found in one race.

[Avenio]

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?

Of course, it's important to note precisely what Edwards and company mean by 'populations' and even what they mean by 'polymorphic loci'. If you were to sample two people from the same village in France, odds are they would be more closely related than one person from that village would be to an inhabitant, say of Ullanbataar. But, as you go father away from that 'point of origin' (say you sampled your villager and compared it to an inhabitant of Berlin or Krakow or Moscow) that relatedness factor drops significantly. That's because human genetics doesn't cluster in races, it clusters is sub-populations - things like Y-chromosome haplogroups. And those are very messy things indeed, since they tend to encompass diffuse, oddly-distributed swathes of larger populations.

As well, we are most certainly not talking about genetic differences that have any sort of significant phenotypic consequence. That's because those genes evolve so slowly that all humans alive today are identical for them. Our expansion out of Africa was too fast for any significant new traits to evolve. Skin colour is not a 'significant' trait because it's both genetically-simple (a few single-character point mutations scattered through out a twelve-gene complex coding for melanin production) and we have no proof that the development of different skin colours was adaptive. When geneticists talk about human genetics, they're taking about small mutations in non-coding areas of the genome - ie, the mutations have no function whatsoever. That's why they continue to exist - since the mutations occurred in an area not sensitive to change, they weren't selected out as would mutations in coding genes would be. The vast majority of mutations, after all, are negative.

So what Edwards is doing here is plotting tiny variations in inconsequential areas of the genome and comparing them over geographic distances to say whether or not those small variations can be correlated with one another - not proving the validity of race as a biological construct.

[Geilinor]

Land doesn't originally belong to anyone. The entire concept of original ownership is flawed.

Land belongs to anyone who can make a claim and maintain control of the land. The concept isn't flawed.

Yes, but ownership can change. The first owner doesn't necessarily have the most right over it.

[Mavorpen]

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.

And Anthony Edwards has been completely obliterated repeatedly on this subject.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 7/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 7/abstract

Not only that, but the majority of researches on this subject understand the basic fact that the existence of populations does not mean race is a valid taxonomic tool, including reputable organizations such as the American Anthropological Association.
http://www.aaanet.org/resources/A-Publi ... rogram.cfm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 9/abstract

[Condunum]

Land belongs to anyone who can make a claim and maintain control of the land. The concept isn't flawed.

Yes, but ownership can change. The first owner doesn't necessarily have the most right over it.

Indeed, as nothing is ever so simple as "You had it and now I do"
Edit: Unless it's a Kit-Kat bar, then I take it for keeps.

[Zelitopia]

Based on my own research 8t appears that the black and brown skin Colorado evolved simultaneously. The lighter skin Colorado took longer until after the humans learner how to fish because of the lack of sunlight and its Vitamin D properties.

I will have to wait until I can access a computer to show you the link I base this on.

The impact on the hierarchy would of course be that instead of the sub races being white and black it would actually be brown and black.

[Sun Wukong]

Based on my own research 8t appears that the black and brown skin Colorado evolved simultaneously. The lighter skin Colorado took longer until after the humans learner how to fish because of the lack of sunlight and its Vitamin D properties.

I will have to wait until I can access a computer to show you the link I base this on.

The impact on the hierarchy would of course be that instead of the sub races being white and black it would actually be brown and black.

[The Land of Truth]

Based on my own research 8t appears that the black and brown skin Colorado evolved simultaneously. The lighter skin Colorado took longer until after the humans learner how to fish because of the lack of sunlight and its Vitamin D properties.

I will have to wait until I can access a computer to show you the link I base this on.

The impact on the hierarchy would of course be that instead of the sub races being white and black it would actually be brown and black.

You do realize that people with brown skin just have less melanin pigment in their skin than people with black skin, right? And that they're not completely separate peoples?

Also, lack of sunlight and Vitamin D would make light-skinned people appear over a shorter period of time, not a longer one.

[Blakk Metal]

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.

Again, Occam's razor doesn't let you ignore evidence. There is clear evidence here that you glossed over by saying that it's too complicated, which is very obviously invalid.

No, I glossed it over by dismissing for being dubious.

'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.

This isn't a rebuttal, you're again glossing over Mavorpen's post and just claiming that his reasoning, which is well supported by evidence, is somehow "not legitimate" without giving any reasoning or evidence as to why that should be the case.

So you didn't rebut him, you just made vague claims.

These claims are perfectly reasonable. Just because they are qualitative doesn't mean they are useless.

Your evidence is bullshit. Evolution can be explained fairly easily, and is completely obvious. The hypothesis that a fuckload of people

it doesn't take a "fuckload of people", it takes a few that are in power combined with a legacy of discrimination that has existed since this nation's inception.

If historical discrimination is so important, why aren't the Finns inferior to Russians and Swedes in Finland?

are willing to compromise justice and public safety

So you don't accept that people are willing to hurt the people that they hate if they have the power to? It's not particularly unintuitive, and it's not as if police officers and politicians are naturally saints.

1. They aren't saints, but I'm pretty sure most of them aren't sadists willing to fail at their jobs and hurt society.
2. What makes you think that most people in power hate blacks? If they honestly did, why is saying bad things about blacks considered taboo? Why do blacks get the same college degrees for less work? Why was the death penalty sabotaged for their sake?

to hurt a politically favored class of people

Black people are not at all politically favored.

Yes they are, at least nominally.

If they were, we wouldn't just now have our first non-white president, and crack and cocaine would have the same minimum sentence.

The reason that crack and cocaine is because of public hysteria in the early 1980's, not because of a racist conspiracy.

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.

There also isn't clear boundaries in linguistics, but it's still considered a science.

[Mavorpen]

Again, Occam's razor doesn't let you ignore evidence. There is clear evidence here that you glossed over by saying that it's too complicated, which is very obviously invalid.

No, I glossed it over by dismissing for being dubious.

Except, it's not. Already proved my source and data is reliable and already proved that your source does not claim what you think it claims.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3455900/pdf/11524_2006_Article_433.pdf

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:

Note that this latter perspective suggests that underreporting is inadvertent,
not intentional.

But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:

No, it does not. Your source studies the concordance rate to show how accurate self reported studies are. And if you read the results, it's actually very high.



It does not, ANYWHERE, say "self reported studies on race and drug use are wrong." It does not, ANYWHERE, report any specific statistics measuring marijuana use by race that shows a difference level such as this:

Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.

Unfortunately, a drug test provides no data regarding the frequency or chronicity of drug use or the extent to which treatment resources are needed or have been previously used. Thus, because drug use and abuse history can only be
obtained from “good” questions, surveys are indispensable tools for informing
public policy.

In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases

The discrimination
scale showed a significant association with cocaine concordance, with discordant respondents reporting higher levels of discrimination than concordant respondents (t440 = 2.11, P< .05). Privacy ratings were associated with marijuana
concordance, with discordant respondents reporting lower levels of perceived privacy
than concordant respondents (t422 = 2.60, P < .01). There were no other theory-based mediators significantly associated with the combined concordance measure.

In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this

The data collection method used in NSDUH involves in-person interviews with sample persons, incorporating procedures that would be likely to increase respondents' cooperation and willingness to report honestly about their illicit drug use behavior. Confidentiality is stressed in all written and oral communications with potential respondents. Respondents' names are not collected with the data, and computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) methods are used to provide a private and confidential setting to complete the interview.

Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.

B.3.4 Validity of Self-Reported Substance Use

Most substance use prevalence estimates, including those produced for NSDUH, are based on self-reports of use. Although studies generally have supported the validity of self-report data, it is well documented that these data may be biased (underreported or overreported). The bias varies by several factors, including the mode of administration, the setting, the population under investigation, and the type of drug (Aquilino, 1994; Brener et al., 2006; Harrison & Hughes, 1997; Tourangeau & Smith, 1996; Turner, Lessler, & Gfroerer, 1992). NSDUH utilizes widely accepted methodological practices for increasing the accuracy of self-reports, such as encouraging privacy through audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) and providing assurances that individual responses will remain confidential. Comparisons using these methods within NSDUH have shown that they reduce reporting bias (Gfroerer, Eyerman, & Chromy, 2002). Various procedures have been used to validate self-report data, such as biological specimens (e.g., urine, hair, saliva), proxy reports (e.g., family member, peer), and repeated measures (e.g., recanting) (Fendrich, Johnson, Sudman, Wislar, & Spiehler, 1999). However, these procedures often are impractical or too costly for general population epidemiological studies (SRNT Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification, 2002).

A study cosponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) examined the validity of NSDUH self-report data on drug use among persons aged 12 to 25. The study found that it is possible to collect urine and hair specimens with a relatively high response rate in a general population survey, and that most youths and young adults reported their recent drug use accurately in self-reports (Harrison, Martin, Enev, & Harrington, 2007). However, there were some reporting differences in either direction, with some respondents not reporting use but testing positive, and some reporting use but testing negative. Technical and statistical problems related to the hair tests precluded presenting comparisons of self-reports and hair test results, while small sample sizes for self-reports and positive urine test results for opiates and stimulants precluded drawing conclusions about the validity of self-reports of these drugs. Further, inexactness in the window of detection for drugs in biological specimens and biological factors affecting the window of detection could account for some inconsistency between self-reports and urine test results.

So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

[Ulrenon]

You have no idea how angry you would have just made the people who agree with the man in this article.

It's not like I care. They can get angry, as much as they want, it still doesn't change the fact that there are white Hispanics.

NOTE: my disdain is not aimed at you.

I know, I am just giving myself reasons to giggle.

[Mavorpen]

There also isn't clear boundaries in linguistics, but it's still considered a science.

And since he never argued that race is not "considered a science," this is the biggest false equivalency I've seen in a while.

He stated one fact: there is so much overlap between races that it's ultimately useless and unscientific when it comes to cladistics.

[Getrektistan]

Again, Occam's razor doesn't let you ignore evidence. There is clear evidence here that you glossed over by saying that it's too complicated, which is very obviously invalid.

No, I glossed it over by dismissing for being dubious.

Glossing over it isn't a rebuttal in any sense of the word. It literally means that you're ignoring the details of the argument.

This isn't a rebuttal, you're again glossing over Mavorpen's post and just claiming that his reasoning, which is well supported by evidence, is somehow "not legitimate" without giving any reasoning or evidence as to why that should be the case.

So you didn't rebut him, you just made vague claims.

These claims are perfectly reasonable. Just because they are qualitative doesn't mean they are useless.

Yes it does. Vague qualitative reasoning that's no different than saying "nuh-uh" is completely useless against data.

it doesn't take a "fuckload of people", it takes a few that are in power combined with a legacy of discrimination that has existed since this nation's inception.

If historical discrimination is so important, why aren't the Finns inferior to Russians and Swedes in Finland?

You'll have to be more specific, I'm afraid, I don't know enough Scandinavian history to know what you're asking.

So you don't accept that people are willing to hurt the people that they hate if they have the power to? It's not particularly unintuitive, and it's not as if police officers and politicians are naturally saints.

1. They aren't saints, but I'm pretty sure most of them aren't sadists willing to fail at their jobs and hurt society.
2. What makes you think that most people in power hate blacks? If they honestly did, why is saying bad things about blacks considered taboo? Why do blacks get the same college degrees for less work? Why was the death penalty sabotaged for their sake?

1. Well all of history and interpersonal experience disagrees with you.
2. I didn't say most people in power hate blacks at all. I explicitly said a few people combined with historical racism embedded in our system. So I refuse to even address those sources, although I'll note that your first claim is completely incorrect as anybody who has had a modicum of experience with college admissions would know.

Black people are not at all politically favored.

Yes they are, at least nominally.

"Nominally" doesn't mean anything. You can call anybody anything you want, it doesn't make it true.

If they were, we wouldn't just now have our first non-white president, and crack and cocaine would have the same minimum sentence.

The reason that crack and cocaine is because of public hysteria in the early 1980's, not because of a racist conspiracy.[/quote]

Source? Because that's a claim I've never seen before.

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

There also isn't clear boundaries in linguistics, but it's still considered a science.

The boundaries in linguistics are significantly more clear.

Again, all your claims can be replaced with "nuh uh" because you don't provide any evidence, and the evidence you do provide supports straw man claims.

[Mavorpen]

The boundaries in linguistics are significantly more clear.

Honestly that's not even the biggest issue with this claim. Cladistics and taxonomy in general is really, really specific and stringent. Comparing it to linguistics only demonstrates a disturbing failure to understand taxonomy.

[Wolffbaden]

First you claimed that people can be categorized into races based on genetics, and thus, that it's scientific.

And you can. Based off genetic information, people can be clustered into specific classification groups, and I've already explained how.

And you claim that "you don't just base it off genetics. You also base it off of their linguistics, cultural characteristics, history, geography, etc." Except, that isn't. It's sociology. So, which is it?

It's both, and I'm having a hard time here figuring out why exactly you're not grasping this.

Genetics can tell you what traits they have, what traits they share, and therefore what groups you can cluster them in with, if you examine the loci of specific genes on a chromosome; the more you examine, the more accurately you can classify them. This is old news; 20-ish years old actually. But that doesn't give you the full picture of where they came from, who they intermingled with if anyone, etc., all of which are useful things to understand when examining genetics. For that, you do actually have to turn to other fields for answers. Linguistics studies reveal similarities and differences in languages (and we know linguistics barriers have affected gene flow between populations), cultural characteristic studies reveal the same similarities and differences between groups of people (archaeology is useful here). History and general geography should be obvious enough in how they're useful; did these people migrate, why did they migrate, who did they encounter along the way, etc.?

Basically, the more information you have about a people and their history, the better. To understand their history is to understand who they are and what made them the way that they are.

Furthermore, are you trying to argue that race is phenotypical, genotypical, or sociological?

It's a combination. Genetically, we can be clustered into different groups, because different groups do have different genetic characteristics than others do. Sociological elements, like linguistics and culture, also help cluster us for the reasons previously explained.

If it's based on phenotype, then why stop at skin color?

We don't just "stop at skin color". Hair color and eye color are obviously also useful ways to determine where a person falls in the classification system. People aren't just clustered into the nine groups I mentioned earlier; there's subgroups to those groups as well which have distinct genetic markers to distinguish them (for instance, as I also mentioned, the Northern Chinese and the Southern Chinese).

As has already been explained, there's more genetic diversity between people of the same skin color than with people of different colors, so skin color is obviously not an accurate measure of "race".

But there's still enough of a genetic dissimilarity between the two that we can plainly tell that, just based off skin color alone, they are different from each other-- hence the reason why they have different skin colors in the first place. The same is true for eye color and hair color. If a person has light skin, fair hair (let's say blonde for the sake of argument), and blue eyes, then they probably have Northern European ancestry, because we know that these are genetic traits which evolved and are still present at high frequency in Northern Europe, and certainly not, say, Africa.

If it's based on genotype, then where is the gene that you can look at and know immediately that the person is/was black/white/Asian/etc.?

SLC24A5 and Thr111Ala are present in SNPs (mutated forms) throughout 99% of the European population and are responsible for the paler skin tone found in them. SLC24A5 regulates calcium in our body's melanocytes and was likely evolved as a response to Europe's low ultraviolet radiation levels. And it also helps us process Vitamin D. Although the original alleles are found in the populations of both Asia and Africa, the mutated forms which are found here in Europeans are not, so that's how we can tell that a person with these genes is of European ancestry or not, and that's how simple it is.

Here's the deal: geographic distribution of ultraviolet radiation is what has affected the genetic differentiation of human skin colors around the world. Areas that are farther from the equator and receive less ultraviolet radiation because they're closer to the poles have lighter-skinned populations which have evolved in response to this fact; areas that are closer to the equator and receive more ultraviolet radiation consequently have darker-skinned populations which have evolved in response to this fact. This is a development that's occurred in our species over the last 50,000-100,000 years; everybody used to be dark-skinned at one time (which makes sense, considering we know that our species originated from Africa), but as populations have migrated and moved to different areas around the world, skin colors have changed dramatically in response.

The long and short of it boils down to:

1) Humans are all basically the same, but at the same time, they're different.
2) Different frequencies of alleles tend to cluster differently within different populations.
3) In point of 2, this is where races enter the picture.

You're wrong. And so is Lewontin. His argument on diversity was refuted by the British geneticist Anthony Edwards 11 years ago.

And Anthony Edwards has been completely obliterated repeatedly on this subject.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 7/abstract

Where, exactly? This is a random-ass paper that has nothing to do with Edwards' work, nor Cavalli-Sforza whom Edwards worked with and whose research I have referenced and linked to several times now, simply claiming (incorrectly) that race is simply a social construct written by some random-ass person named "Jonathan Kaplan". Can't find any credentials on this person, can you?

I'm just going to go on ahead and leave this here, since you apparently don't seem to know any of the people I'm talking about:

A.F.W. Edwards
L.L. Cavalli-Sforza

Not only that, but the majority of researches on this subject understand the basic fact that the existence of populations does not mean race is a valid taxonomic tool, including reputable organizations such as the American Anthropological Association.
http://www.aaanet.org/resources/A-Publi ... rogram.cfm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 9/abstract

And yet this isn't actually true. The majority of researchers, including geneticists, do still use race as a taxonomic tool and agree with the proposition that there are human races. Just as far as anthropologists, which you're citing, are concerned...

69% of physical anthropologists
80% of cultural anthropologists

...agree with the proposition that there are human races and use them as a taxonomic tool...

67% of biologists
64% of developmental psychologists

...do as well.

I'm just going to point this out before I go, since it's clear you all already have your minds made up about this and are only desperately looking for whatever claims you can to support your side (the wrong side): geneticists have the ability to examine your genome or my genome and know enough about the biological elements of race to assign segments of our genomes to our ancestors (and by extension to us); they can figure out whether or not they were Europeans, or Africans, or Asians... Northern Europeans, or Northern Asian Arctics... Northern or Southern Chinese... etc.

This would not be possible unless there were differential and distinguishing genetic characteristics between each of these clusters in the first place, which, of course, in spite of all the similarities, there are still distinguishing differences. Race is not just a social construct; there's science behind it too, whether you like it or not.

[Blakk Metal]

If historical discrimination is so important, why aren't the Finns inferior to Russians and Swedes in Finland?

You'll have to be more specific, I'm afraid, I don't know enough Scandinavian history to know what you're asking.

Do you want another example?

1. They aren't saints, but I'm pretty sure most of them aren't sadists willing to fail at their jobs and hurt society.
2. What makes you think that most people in power hate blacks? If they honestly did, why is saying bad things about blacks considered taboo? Why do blacks get the same college degrees for less work? Why was the death penalty sabotaged for their sake?

1. Well all of history and interpersonal experience disagrees with you.
2. I didn't say most people in power hate blacks at all. I explicitly said a few people combined with historical racism embedded in our system.

You said, 'a few that are in power', which means one of two things: You are either referring to a few people who happen to possess control or you referring to a small group within the group that has power. If it is the former, then you indeed said that those in power are mostly racist. If it is the latter, how would a small percentage of those in power be able to control the actions of the government as a whole? Wouldn't that mean they were the ones in power?

So I refuse to even address those sources, although I'll note that your first claim is completely incorrect as anybody who has had a modicum of experience with college admissions would know.

Tell me why it is incorrect.

Yes they are, at least nominally.

"Nominally" doesn't mean anything. You can call anybody anything you want, it doesn't make it true.

If they were, we wouldn't just now have our first non-white president, and crack and cocaine would have the same minimum sentence.

The reason that crack and cocaine is because of public hysteria in the early 1980's, not because of a racist conspiracy.

Source? Because that's a claim I've never seen before.

The boundaries in linguistics are significantly more clear.

Not really. Most words in English are Romance and its two special characters are North Germanic, yet English is considered a West Germanic language.

[Norstal]

....

I am to lazy to answer to your examples of very awfull knowledge so I will just left sources here.

There you have Ottoman "tolerance": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_Tower

Inqisition was not that bad says the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/j ... cationnews
Only 12,500 executed people in the whole 300 years. Compare that there were more people killed in the Red terror in Spain in the 1930s.

Of couse the liberals want to make it as if there were millions killed by the Inqusution.

1802 is not the Islamic Golden age, which is between 600 and 1200. Anyone can cherry pick the lowest point of civilization and call them bad.

[Getrektistan]

You'll have to be more specific, I'm afraid, I don't know enough Scandinavian history to know what you're asking.

Do you want another example?

Yes, I would appreciate that, thank you.

1. Well all of history and interpersonal experience disagrees with you.
2. I didn't say most people in power hate blacks at all. I explicitly said a few people combined with historical racism embedded in our system.

You said, 'a few that are in power', which means one of two things: You are either referring to a few people who happen to possess control or you referring to a small group within the group that has power. If it is the former, then you indeed said that those in power are mostly racist. If it is the latter, how would a small percentage of those in power be able to control the actions of the government as a whole? Wouldn't that mean they were the ones in power?

No, you're ignoring that part where I said that we have an inherently racist system. It doesn't take many people to maintain that.

So I refuse to even address those sources, although I'll note that your first claim is completely incorrect as anybody who has had a modicum of experience with college admissions would know.

Tell me why it is incorrect.

That's a whole different issue that would require a very long piece of exposition I'm honestly not willing to write right now. The only relevance to the issue at hand is even if your source were true, it wouldn't matter because I didn't say that all people in power hate black people.

The boundaries in linguistics are significantly more clear.

Not really. Most words in English are Romance and its two special characters are North Germanic, yet English is considered a West Germanic language.

1. English is West Germanic because its origins are tied to that family of languages. Linguistic families do not depend on the number of loanwords.

2. The fact that we have a definitive way of saying that English belongs to this family or that is what makes the classification of languages significantly more rigorous than that classification of races, which are extremely convoluted and contradictory.