NATION

PASSWORD

Race is a social construct without scientific support

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Race is a social construct without scientific support

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Fri May 14, 2010 9:56 am

Race is a constant subject on NSG and usually engenders a great deal of ignorant statements. The purpose of this thread is to educate those who don't already know that:

1. The concept of race has little or no basis in biology, genetics, anthropology, or any other science. Now, "race" can be a malleable word and used in some contexts -- well removed from common understandings of the term -- is argued by some to have some relevance in some fields. But overall, the scientific consensus is "race" doesn't exist except as a socio-political construct.

2. Race is actually 1) a social construct that is 2) poorly descriptive of the phenomenon it seeks to describe and 3) has a long history of devastating consequences for individuals.


Note: I apologize in advance for a lengthy rant with many citations. I created similar threads on the old forums, but they are gone with the wind. I have litterally hundreds of relevant links, but will try to contain myself -- especially in this first post.

EVIDENCE:
The following are consensus documents from various fields of science.

Position Paper of the NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME CENTER (doc):

This position paper outlines pertinent scientific findings from the fields of anthropology, human genetics, sociology, and epidemiology; our conclusions based on those findings; implications for science, medicine, and society; and our recommendations for moving forward.

Findings

1. The biological variation of the human species exhibits gradients of differentiation, not subdivisions into homogeneous, discontinuous units.

2. The within-versus the between-group variation is greater in the so-called “races” of traditional anthropology (e.g., Mongoloid, Australoid, Caucasoid, Negroid). Therefore the majority of variation within the human species is found between individuals and not groups.

3. The ancestry of maternal (mtDNA) and paternal (Y chromosome DNA) lineages crosscut the group (“racial”) boundaries suggested by anatomical traits like skin color and hair form.

4. Combinations of physical traits used to define groups are not obligatorily linked to each other or to health, disease, or other unobservable traits.

5. The demographic units of human societies (and of the U.S. census) are the products of social, cultural, or political rules, not the forces of biological evolution.

Conclusions

1. Modern extant humans do not fracture into races (subspecies) based on the modern phylogenetic criteria of molecular systematics. Thus,

a. The social and demographic units of human societies are not races, and

b. The racial taxa (groups) of classical anthropology are not races.

2. The biological “boundaries” between any human divisions (groups, populations, nationalities) are arbitrary and largely dependent on what traits are chosen for emphasis.

3. Group differences in health parameters have not been shown to be encoded in the human genome as part of an evolutionary pattern of divergence of humans.

4. Gene-environment interactions may be more important in explaining group differences in health and disease.

Implications

1. The non-existence of human races (subspecies) does not mean the non-existence of racism - the structured systematic oppression of groups defined by ancestry or physical traits and/or conceptualized as being fundamentally different. Racism must be addressed, especially as it relates to health and disease.

2. Individuals cannot be treated as representative for all those who physically resemble them, or have some degree of shared continental ancestry, or are placed in the same group.

3. Group differences in health or disease cannot be understood as solely related to membership in genetically-defined groups.

4. There is a need for a paradigm shift in the conceptualization and application of human genetic variation relative to our understanding of group definition and health outcomes. This shift will require new approaches to methodology, training, policy, and priorities.


Here is an open letter published in Genome Biology 2008, 9:404 from a a multidisciplinary group of Stanford faculty (excerpts) (emphasis in original):

Statement 1: We believe that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically organized categories of race and ethnicity ... [W]e emphasize that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically ranked categories of race or ethnicity. Furthermore, we abhor any use of genetic data to reinforce the idea of between-group difference in order to benefit one group to the detriment of another.

Statement 2: We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups, where those groups are defined in terms of linguistic, geographic, and cultural boundaries [3,5,13,14]. Patterns of variation, however, are far from random. We recognize that human population history, including major migrations from one continent to another as well as more short-range movements, has led to correlation between genetic variation and geographic distribution [14-17]. This finding is particularly true of indigenous peoples; populations characterized by a high degree of interaction with neighboring groups adhere less to these patterns.

...Statement 4: We recognize that racial and ethnic categories are created and maintained within sociopolitical contexts and have shifted in meaning over time Human genetic variation within continents is, for the most part, geographically continuous and clinal, particularly in regions of the world that have not received many immigrants in recent centuries [18]. Genetic data cannot reveal an individual's full geographic ancestry precisely, although emerging research has been used to identify geographic ancestry at the continental and subcontinental levels [3,19]. Genetic clusters, however, are far from being equivalent to sociopolitical racial or ethnic categories. Diverse populations identified as 'Hispanic', for example, are heterogeneous and have distinct ancestries and social histories [20]. We recognize that social experiences and conditions inform racial identity, making such identity a poor proxy for genetic ancestry.

...Statement 7: We discourage the use of race as a proxy for biological similarity and support efforts to minimize the use of the categories of race and ethnicity in clinical medicine, maintaining focus on the individual rather than the group Although a broad range of associations between genetic markers and human traits - including diseases - is emerging, any accompanying correspondence with race or ethnicity is statistical. Although certain relatively rare genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs, are found in higher frequencies in some human populations, the result of population bottlenecks or environmental pressure, these diseases are also found in other populations. Overemphasizing the genetic contribution to complex human disease or behavioral traits can promote not only racism, but also a naive genetic essentialism - the notion that genes determine health status or behavior [28-30]. Such essentialism is particularly dangerous in clinical translation, where a focus should be maintained on the individual rather than the group [31].


AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION STATEMENT ON "RACE" (excerpts):

The following statement was adopted by the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, acting on a draft prepared by a committee of representative American anthropologists. It does not reflect a consensus of all members of the AAA, as individuals vary in their approaches to the study of "race." We believe that it represents generally the contemporary thinking and scholarly positions of a majority of anthropologists.

In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them....


(For more information, the AAA website, RACE: Are we so different? is highly recommended).

National Cancer Institute, Statements from the President's Cancer Panel: The Meaning of Race in Science--Considerations for Cancer Research (emphasis in original):

Race is not a biologically determined classification. Race is a product of our social and political history. Therefore, concluded Dr. Harold Freeman, Chair of the President's Cancer Panel, "we need to look at race not as a biological indicator, but as an indicator of what happens to people socially." This assessment underscored a day of interesting and lively debate on issues of race, racism, and the use of racial classifications in cancer research and for all of science.

Making the day's deliberations somewhat unique were the diverse perspectives brought to bear on the issue of race in science--the presidentially-appointed, three member Panel, convened a group of nationally recognized experts in such disciplines as sociology, anthropology, philosophy, biology, genetics, and epidemiology to present testimony. Across all disciplines present, it was agreed that the biological concept of race is no longer tenable. Rather, race is a social construct which is a product of this Nation's social and political history. Supporting this conclusion, data were presented to the Panel showing that substantially more genetic variation is found within "races" than between them. Also, in response to changing concepts of what constitutes race, the revised UNESCO Statement on the Biological Aspects of Race, developed by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, was shared publicly for the first time. It concluded, in essence, that the concept of a biological basis for racial classification is no longer acceptable. ....


American Association of Physical Anthropologists Statement on Biological Aspects of Race:
1. All humans living today belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, and share a common descent. Although there are differences of opinion regarding how and where different human groups diverged or fused to form new ones from a common ancestral group, all living populations in each of the earth's geographic areas have evolved from that ancestral group over the same amount of time. Much of the biological variation among populations involves modest degrees of variation in the frequency of shared traits. Human populations have at times been isolated, but have never genetically diverged enough to produce any biological barriers to mating between members of different populations.

2. Biological differences between human beings reflect both hereditary factors and the influence of natural and social environments. In most cases, these differences are due to the interaction of both. The degree to which environment or heredity affects any particular trait varies greatly.

3. There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.

4. There are obvious physical differences between populations living in different geographic areas of the world. Some of these differences are strongly inherited and others, such as body size and shape, are strongly influenced by nutrition, way of life, and other aspects of the environment. Genetic differences between populations commonly consist of differences in the frequencies of all inherited traits, including those that are environmentally malleable.

5. For centuries, scholars have sought to comprehend patterns in nature by classifying living things. The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries. Furthermore, the complexities of human history make it difficult to determine the position of certain groups in classifications. Multiplying subcategories cannot correct the inadequacies of these classifications.

Generally, the traits used to characterize a population are either independently inherited or show only varying degrees of association with one another within each population. Therefore, the combination of these traits in an individual very commonly deviates from the average combination in the population. This fact renders untenable the idea of discrete races made up chiefly of typical representatives.

6. In humankind as well as in other animals, the genetic composition of each population is subject over time to the modifying influence of diverse factors. These include natural selection, promoting adaptation of the population to the environment; mutations, involving modifications in genetic material; admixture, leading to genetic exchange between local populations, and randomly changing frequencies of genetic characteristics from one generation to another. The human features which have universal biological value for the survival of the species are not known to occur more frequently in one population than in any other. Therefore it is meaningless from the biological point of view to attribute a general inferiority or superiority to this or to that race.

7. The human species has a past rich in migration, in territorial expansions, and in contractions. As a consequence, we are adapted to many of the earth's environments in general, but to none in particular. For many millennia, human progress in any field has been based on culture and not on genetic improvement.

Mating between members of different human groups tends to diminish differences between groups, and has played a very important role in human history. Wherever different human populations have come in contact, such matings have taken place. Obstacles to such interaction have been social and cultural, not biological. The global process of urbanization, coupled with intercontinental migrations, has the potential to reduce the differences among all human populations.

8. Partly as a result of gene flow, the hereditary characteristics of human populations are in a state of perpetual flux. Distinctive local populations are continually coming into and passing out of existence. Such populations do not correspond to breeds of domestic animals, which have been produced by artificial selection over many generations for specific human purposes.

9. The biological consequences of mating depend only on the individual genetic makeup of the couple, and not on their racial classifications. Therefore, no biological justification exists for restricting intermarriage between persons of different racial classifications.

10. There is no necessary concordance between biological characteristics and culturally defined groups. On every continent, there are diverse populations that differ in language, economy, and culture. There is no national, religious, linguistic or cultural group or economic class that constitutes a race. However, human beings who speak the same language and share the same culture frequently select each other as mates, with the result that there is often some degree of correspondence between the distribution of physical traits on the one hand and that of linguistic and cultural traits on the other. But there is no causal linkage between these physical and behavioral traits, and therefore it is not justifiable to attribute cultural characteristics to genetic inheritance.

11. Physical, cultural and social environments influence the behavioral differences among individuals in society. Although heredity influences the behavioral variability of individuals within a given population, it does not affect the ability of any such population to function in a given social setting. The genetic capacity for intellectual development is one of the biological traits of our species essential for its survival. This genetic capacity is known to differ among individuals. The peoples of the world today appear to possess equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture. Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations.


MORE EVIDENCE
Here are a few peer-reviewed scientific articles to press home the point:

"An apportionment of human DNA diversity," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, April 29, 1997 vol. 94 no. 9 4516-4519 (pdf) (abstract quoted, full text linked):
It is often taken for granted that the human species is divided in rather homogeneous groups or races, among which biological differences are large. Studies of allele frequencies do not support this view, but they have not been sufficient to rule it out either. We analyzed human molecular diversity at 109 DNA markers, namely 30 microsatellite loci and 79 polymorphic restriction sites (restriction fragment length polymorphism loci) in 16 populations of the world. By partitioning genetic variances at three hierarchical levels of population subdivision, we found that differences between members of the same population account for 84.4% of the total, which is in excellent agreement with estimates based on allele frequencies of classic, protein polymorphisms. Genetic variation remains high even within small population groups. On the average, microsatellite and restriction fragment length polymorphism loci yield identical estimates. Differences among continents represent roughly 1/10 of human molecular diversity, which does not suggest that the racial subdivision of our species reflects any major discontinuity in our genome.


"How social status shapes race," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, December 16, 2008 vol. 105 no. 50 19628-19630 (pdf) (full text linked, quote from abstract):
We show that racial perceptions are fluid; how individuals perceive their own race and how they are perceived by others depends in part on their social position. Using longitudinal data from a representative sample of Americans, we find that individuals who are unemployed, incarcerated, or impoverished are more likely to be seen and identify as black and less likely to be seen and identify as white, regardless of how they were classified or identified previously. This is consistent with the view that race is not a fixed individual attribute, but rather a changeable marker of status.

Since at least the 19th century, the dominant understanding of race has been that racial divisions are rooted in biological differences between human populations (1). For the past 50 years or more, social scientists have challenged that notion, claiming that races are instead created through social processes and subject to economic and political calculation (2). However, even in disciplines where race is viewed as socially defined, most empirical studies continue to treat race as a fixed attribute of a particular individual (3). We examine two conceptions of race—how individuals are racially classified by others and how they identify themselves—and find that both change over time. Further, we show that this temporal variation is related to the individuals' social position: People who are unemployed, incarcerated, or impoverished are more likely to be classified and identify as black, and less likely to be classified and identify as white, regardless of how they were classified or identified previously. This study is the first to examine changes in racial classification using a representative longitudinal sample, and our findings suggest that race is not a fixed characteristic, but rather a flexible marker of social status.


"Apportionment of global human genetic diversity based on craniometrics and skin color," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 118 Issue 4, Pages 393 - 398, Published Online: 11 Jul 2002(abstract):
number of analyses of classical genetic markers and DNA polymorphisms have shown that the majority of human genetic diversity exists within local populations (85%), with much less among local populations (5%) or between major geographic regions or races (10%). Previous analysis of craniometric variation (Relethford [1994] Am J Phys Anthropol 95:53-62) found that between 11-14% of global diversity exists among geographic regions, with the remaining diversity existing within regions. The methods used in this earlier paper are extended to a hierarchical partitioning of genetic diversity in quantitative traits, allowing for assessment of diversity among regions, among local populations within regions, and within local populations. These methods are applied to global data on craniometric variation (57 traits) and skin color. Multivariate analysis of craniometric variation shows results similar to those obtained from genetic markers and DNA polymorphisms: roughly 13% of the total diversity is among regions, 6% among local populations within regions, and 81% within local populations. This distribution is concordant with neutral genetic markers. Skin color shows the opposite pattern, with 88% of total variation among regions, 3% among local populations within regions, and 9% within local populations, a pattern shaped by natural selection. The apportionment of genetic diversity in skin color is atypical, and cannot be used for purposes of classification. If racial groups are based on skin color, it appears unlikely that other genetic and quantitative traits will show the same patterns of variation.


"Science, Race and Politics," PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMAZING MEETING 4 | 26 JANUARY 2006 | JAMES RANDI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION(pdf) (excerpts quoted):
Scientific evidence overwhelming shows that biological differences in human populations the result of continuous variations of
individual characteristics which form gradations from one population to the next. There are no clusters or genetically linked characteristics which form well-bounded discrete human groups. Characterizations of “race” are thus purely social constructs. Even these divisive social distinctions are created and perpetuated very differently by various cultural groups. Thus, the history of “race” as a concept represents the creation of social categories for purposes of cultural subjugation and are not grounded in the empirical evidence of human biological variations.


"Racial Profiling in Medical Research," New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 344, No. 18 May 3, 2001(excerpts):
Race is a social construct, not a scientific classification. ...Any attempt to establish lines of
division among biological populations is both arbitrary and subjective.


"Larger Genetic Differences Within Africans Than Between Africans and Eurasians," Genetics 161: 269–274 (May 2002)(pdf) (full text linked, abstract quoted):
The worldwide pattern of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) variation is of great interest to human
geneticists, population geneticists, and evolutionists, but remains incompletely understood. We studied
the pattern in noncoding regions, because they are less affected by natural selection than are coding regions.
Thus, it can reflect better the history of human evolution and can serve as a baseline for understanding the
maintenance of SNPs in human populations. We sequenced 50 noncoding DNA segments each 500 bp
long in 10 Africans, 10 Europeans, and 10 Asians. An analysis of the data suggests that the sampling
scheme is adequate for our purpose. The average nucleotide diversity () for the 50 segments is only
0.061%  0.010% among Asians and 0.064%  0.011% among Europeans but almost twice as high
(0.115%  0.016%) among Africans. The African diversity estimate is even higher than that between
Africans and Eurasians (0.096%  0.012%). From available data for noncoding autosomal regions (total
length  47,038 bp) and X-linked regions (47,421 bp), we estimated the -values for autosomal regions
to be 0.105, 0.070, 0.069, and 0.097% for Africans, Asians, Europeans, and between Africans and Eurasians,
and the corresponding values for X-linked regions to be 0.088, 0.042, 0.053, and 0.082%. Thus, Africans
differ from one another slightly more than from Eurasians, and the genetic diversity in Eurasians is largely
a subset of that in Africans, supporting the out of Africa model of human evolution. Clearly, one must
specify the geographic origins of the individuals sampled when studying  or SNP density.


"Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2009 May;139(1):16-22(abstract only):
Phenotypic traits have been used for centuries for the purpose of racial classification. Developments in quantitative population genetics have allowed global comparison of patterns of phenotypic variation with patterns of variation in classical genetic markers and DNA markers. Human skin color shows a high degree of variation among geographic regions, typical of traits that show extensive natural selection. Even given this high level of geographic differentiation, skin color variation is clinal and is not well described by discrete racial categories. Craniometric traits show a level of among-region differentiation comparable to genetic markers, with high levels of variation within populations as well as a correlation between phenotypic and geographic distance. Craniometric variation is geographically structured, allowing high levels of classification accuracy when comparing crania from different parts of the world. Nonetheless, the boundaries in global variation are not abrupt and do not fit a strict view of the race concept; the number of races and the cutoffs used to define them are arbitrary. The race concept is at best a crude first-order approximation to the geographically structured phenotypic variation in the human species.


"Race as Biology Is Fiction, Racism as a Social Problem Is Real: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives on the Social Construction of Race," American Psychologist, January 2005, Vol. 60, No. 1, 16–26(pdf) (excerpts quoted):
The consensus among most scholars in fields such as evolutionary biology, anthropology, and other disciplines is that racial distinctions fail on all three counts—that is, they are not genetically discrete, are not reliably measured, and are not scientifically meaningful. Yet even these counterarguments often fail to take into account the origin and history of the idea of “race.” This history is
significant because it demonstrates that race is a fairly recent construct, one that emerged well after population groups from different continents came into contact with one another.


The bottom line: Please stop the psuedo-scientific discussions of race -- such as "X is what race?" and particularly use of outdated and refuted notions like Caucasian, Mongoloid, etc. Racism is still a very real problem, because of the perception of race, but those of you who talk as if you "know" something about race based on science are making fools of yourselves.
Last edited by The Cat-Tribe on Fri May 14, 2010 10:16 am, edited 3 times in total.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Treznor
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7343
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Treznor » Fri May 14, 2010 10:02 am

That's...impressive. Quite a bit of research and reference there. And yet, I'm pretty sure the argument against it boils down to a very simple and primal concept:

If it's different, kill it.

Maybe one day we'll be able to elevate ourselves above the level of wolf packs.

User avatar
MisanthropicPopulism
Minister
 
Posts: 3299
Founded: Apr 10, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby MisanthropicPopulism » Fri May 14, 2010 10:05 am

Young lengthy amount of words scares and angers me. Prepare to be destroyed.
When life gives you lemons, lemonade for the lemonade god!

User avatar
Tiesabre
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1520
Founded: May 15, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Tiesabre » Fri May 14, 2010 10:06 am

We fear and hate what we do not know and understand.
Psycho Baby: I find atheists who disparage others for believing are not any better than theists who try to shove it down others' throats.
Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26
Miss. Vivian Smith, Foreign Affairs-in-Chief and WA Ambassador

User avatar
Cybach
Minister
 
Posts: 2272
Founded: Nov 10, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Cybach » Fri May 14, 2010 10:07 am

If race does not exist. Why do I as a North European:

1) Possess a different natural body odor than for example an Indian?
2) Why do I and my North European brethren on average possess brains that weigh a different size than for example south-east Asians? This extends to most other physical differences from eye shape to size as well.
3) If I am absolutely the same as a sub-Saharan African, who is a "pure" humanoid so to speak. Why do I and most of my fellow North Europeans possess recessive alleles for hair, eye and skin color whereas the afore-mentioned is unlikely to possess these mutations?


Race has it's purposes to draw the lines between these very apparent and noticable differences. Why are you so adamantly against it as a means of classification?

User avatar
Sun Aut Ex
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5402
Founded: Nov 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Sun Aut Ex » Fri May 14, 2010 10:07 am

Yeah, and so what? These are the same morons who say that homosexuality isn't a disorder.
Strykyh wrote:I wasn't trying to be intelligent.

Keronians wrote:
So you think it's ok to waste valuable police time and resources to pander to minority superstitions?

"All available officers, report downtown, armed suspected firing wildly into the public."
"I'll be about ten minutes, I have to go to ID a Muslim woman."


Yes.

Unless of course it's not OK for a woman to ask for a female to ask for a female officer to carry out body checks. In which case, the answer would be no.

"All available officers, report downtown, armed suspected firing wildly into the public."
"I'll be about then minutes, I have to go to carry out a body check on a woman."

User avatar
North Suran
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9974
Founded: Jul 12, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby North Suran » Fri May 14, 2010 10:07 am

Tiesabre wrote:We fear and hate what we do not know and understand.

Particularly long, thought-out, sourced arguments.

*shudders*
Neu Mitanni wrote:As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.


User avatar
South Lorenya
Senator
 
Posts: 3925
Founded: Feb 14, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby South Lorenya » Fri May 14, 2010 10:07 am

C'mon, we alreayd know that -- it's as obvious as saying that the pope is catholic. And discordian.
-- King DragonAtma of the Dragon Kingdom of South Lorenya.

Nagas on a plane! ^_^

User avatar
The Bleeding Roses
Minister
 
Posts: 2593
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby The Bleeding Roses » Fri May 14, 2010 10:08 am

A bunch of PC nonsense by the same crowd that redefined homosexuality from a mental disorder to completely natural within the last 50 years...

I suggest you read Eugenics by Edgar Schuster, published in 1912.
The Parthenese Confederation
Parthenon
Intergallactic Hell
The Bleeding Roses
West Parthenon
Former GDODAD/Metus Member

User avatar
The Imperial Navy
Minister
 
Posts: 3485
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby The Imperial Navy » Fri May 14, 2010 10:08 am

OMG! Rational argument! KILL IT WITH FIRE!

User avatar
Pope Joan
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19503
Founded: Mar 11, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Pope Joan » Fri May 14, 2010 10:09 am

We humans like to sort things out, to help us understand them.

Primitive societies are quite knowledgeable about the requisites of breeding to type, for instance.

Read the biblical accounts of how Jacob robbed Laban using this information.

But seriously folks, in two generations the mania about race and ethnic origin will exist only as a sign of subintelligence on the part of the one doing the ranting.
"Life is difficult".

-M. Scott Peck

User avatar
Czardas
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6702
Founded: Feb 25, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Czardas » Fri May 14, 2010 10:10 am

Sun Aut Ex wrote:Yeah, and so what? These are the same morons who say that homosexuality isn't a disorder.

Reality called, it wants you to come visit sometime.

User avatar
North Suran
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9974
Founded: Jul 12, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby North Suran » Fri May 14, 2010 10:11 am

The Bleeding Roses wrote:A bunch of PC nonsense by the same crowd that redefined homosexuality from a mental disorder to completely natural within the last 50 years...

Unless you're going to claim that homosexuality is a choice, of course it is natural.

The Bleeding Roses wrote:I suggest you read Eugenics by Edgar Schuster, published in 1912.

With a title like that, I'm sure it is a perfectly balanced and rational read and totally not a pseudo-racist diatribe of the type that inspired the Nazis and their racial science.
Neu Mitanni wrote:As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.


User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Fri May 14, 2010 10:11 am

Cybach wrote:If race does not exist. Why do I as a North European:

1) Possess a different natural body odor than for example an Indian?
2) Why do I and my North European brethren on average possess brains that weigh a different size than for example south-east Asians? This extends to most other physical differences from eye shape to size as well.
3) If I am absolutely the same as a sub-Saharan African, who is a "pure" humanoid so to speak. Why do I and most of my fellow North Europeans possess recessive alleles for hair, eye and skin color whereas the afore-mentioned is unlikely to possess these mutations?


Race has it's purposes to draw the lines between these very apparent and noticable differences. Why are you so adamantly against it as a means of classification?


Most of the above statements are simply not true AND, as explained at length in the OP, there are differences between individual humans, but they don't (as you suggest) fall into distict categories.

There are no "very apparent and noticeable differences" between categories of "race."
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Sun Aut Ex
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5402
Founded: Nov 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Sun Aut Ex » Fri May 14, 2010 10:12 am

Czardas wrote:
Sun Aut Ex wrote:Yeah, and so what? These are the same morons who say that homosexuality isn't a disorder.

Reality called, it wants you to come visit sometime.


I've had this debate before. "Being gay isn't a disorder, or a choice, or a fetish, it... it just IS, dammit! Because science says so!"

I call bullshit.
Strykyh wrote:I wasn't trying to be intelligent.

Keronians wrote:
So you think it's ok to waste valuable police time and resources to pander to minority superstitions?

"All available officers, report downtown, armed suspected firing wildly into the public."
"I'll be about ten minutes, I have to go to ID a Muslim woman."


Yes.

Unless of course it's not OK for a woman to ask for a female to ask for a female officer to carry out body checks. In which case, the answer would be no.

"All available officers, report downtown, armed suspected firing wildly into the public."
"I'll be about then minutes, I have to go to carry out a body check on a woman."

User avatar
EvilDarkMagicians
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13456
Founded: Jul 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby EvilDarkMagicians » Fri May 14, 2010 10:13 am

The Bleeding Roses wrote:A bunch of PC nonsense by the same crowd that redefined homosexuality from a mental disorder to completely natural within the last 50 years...


These PC people sound quite rational to me.

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Fri May 14, 2010 10:13 am

The Bleeding Roses wrote:A bunch of PC nonsense by the same crowd that redefined homosexuality from a mental disorder to completely natural within the last 50 years...

I suggest you read Eugenics by Edgar Schuster, published in 1912.


Setting aside the notion that all the groups cited above are some sort of PC cabal (and letting the homosexuality comment slide for now), what would a book written in 1912 have to tell us that would be more informative than, for example, the mapping of the human genome?
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
EvilDarkMagicians
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13456
Founded: Jul 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby EvilDarkMagicians » Fri May 14, 2010 10:14 am

Sun Aut Ex wrote:
Czardas wrote:
Sun Aut Ex wrote:Yeah, and so what? These are the same morons who say that homosexuality isn't a disorder.

Reality called, it wants you to come visit sometime.


I've had this debate before. "Being gay isn't a disorder, or a choice, or a fetish, it... it just IS, dammit! Because science says so!"

I call bullshit.


Why is being gay any more of a disorder than being straight?

User avatar
The Parkus Empire
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43030
Founded: Sep 12, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Parkus Empire » Fri May 14, 2010 10:14 am

Sun Aut Ex wrote:I've had this debate before. "Being gay isn't a disorder, or a choice, or a fetish, it... it just IS, dammit! Because science says so!"

I call bullshit.


Eh. Do you have any source to use against science other than a religious document?
American Orthodox: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
Jesus is Allah ن
Burkean conservative
Homophobic
Anti-feminist sexist
♂Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know men and women aren't the same.♀

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Fri May 14, 2010 10:15 am

Sun Aut Ex wrote:
Czardas wrote:
Sun Aut Ex wrote:Yeah, and so what? These are the same morons who say that homosexuality isn't a disorder.

Reality called, it wants you to come visit sometime.


I've had this debate before. "Being gay isn't a disorder, or a choice, or a fetish, it... it just IS, dammit! Because science says so!"

I call bullshit.


I understand that asking for actual substantive content may be too much to ask, but does staying remotely on-topic seem possible for you?
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Buffett and Colbert
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32382
Founded: Oct 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Buffett and Colbert » Fri May 14, 2010 10:16 am

The Bleeding Roses wrote:A bunch of PC nonsense by the same crowd that redefined homosexuality from a mental disorder to completely natural within the last 50 years...

I suggest you read Eugenics by Edgar Schuster, published in 1912.

I suggest you read the links provided by TCT.

It's funny, though, that you cite a work from 100 years ago. It totally stands up against modern science.
If the knowledge isn't useful, you haven't found the lesson yet. ~Iniika
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Clever, but your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

His Jedi mind tricks are insignificant compared to the power of Buffy's sex appeal.
Keronians wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:My law class took my virginity. And it was 100% consensual.

I accuse your precious law class of statutory rape.

User avatar
Czardas
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6702
Founded: Feb 25, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Czardas » Fri May 14, 2010 10:16 am

Sun Aut Ex wrote:
Czardas wrote:
Sun Aut Ex wrote:Yeah, and so what? These are the same morons who say that homosexuality isn't a disorder.

Reality called, it wants you to come visit sometime.


I've had this debate before. "Being gay isn't a disorder, or a choice, or a fetish, it... it just IS, dammit! Because science says so!"

I call bullshit.

You misunderstand. Homosexuality is a tangent completely unrelated to this debate, in fact.

I'm just pointing out that you seem to be ignoring any evidence that challenges your preconceptions (and quite a bit of evidence was presented in the first post from a wide variety of sources). Unless you've actually studied the issue in detail yourself and therefore have compelling evidence that the current scientific consensus on $subject is wrong, dismissing the experts simply because their conclusions are different from the ones you support is remarkably unfounded.

User avatar
The Parkus Empire
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43030
Founded: Sep 12, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Parkus Empire » Fri May 14, 2010 10:16 am

TCT, what term do you suggest using in place for groups like whites and blacks, who should be qualified for reasons like gap studies and Affirmative Action?
American Orthodox: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
Jesus is Allah ن
Burkean conservative
Homophobic
Anti-feminist sexist
♂Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know men and women aren't the same.♀

User avatar
Cybach
Minister
 
Posts: 2272
Founded: Nov 10, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Cybach » Fri May 14, 2010 10:16 am

The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Cybach wrote:If race does not exist. Why do I as a North European:

1) Possess a different natural body odor than for example an Indian?
2) Why do I and my North European brethren on average possess brains that weigh a different size than for example south-east Asians? This extends to most other physical differences from eye shape to size as well.
3) If I am absolutely the same as a sub-Saharan African, who is a "pure" humanoid so to speak. Why do I and most of my fellow North Europeans possess recessive alleles for hair, eye and skin color whereas the afore-mentioned is unlikely to possess these mutations?


Race has it's purposes to draw the lines between these very apparent and noticable differences. Why are you so adamantly against it as a means of classification?


Most of the above statements are simply not true AND, as explained at length in the OP, there are differences between individual humans, but they don't (as you suggest) fall into distict categories.

There are no "very apparent and noticeable differences" between categories of "race."


No apparent and noticeable differences between race categories? You colorblind? Take any ethnic German or Swede and then proceed to take any ethnic Kenyan or Botswanan. Then proceed to compare their skin color, eye color and hair color. No noticeable differences my ass....

User avatar
Dyakovo
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 83162
Founded: Nov 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Dyakovo » Fri May 14, 2010 10:17 am

Sun Aut Ex wrote:
Czardas wrote:
Sun Aut Ex wrote:Yeah, and so what? These are the same morons who say that homosexuality isn't a disorder.

Reality called, it wants you to come visit sometime.


I've had this debate before. "Being gay isn't a disorder, or a choice, or a fetish, it... it just IS, dammit! Because science says so!"

I call bullshit.

If homosexuality is a choice when did you stop wanting to fuck guys (assuming you are a guy)?
Don't take life so serious... It isn't permanent...
Freedom from religion is an integral part of Freedom of religion
Married to Koshka
USMC veteran MOS 0331/8152
Grave_n_Idle: Maybe that's why the bible is so anti-other-gods, the other gods do exist, but they diss on Jehovah all the time for his shitty work.
Ifreann: Odds are you're secretly a zebra with a very special keyboard.
Ostro: I think women need to be trained
Margno, Llamalandia, Tarsonis Survivors, Bachmann's America, Internationalist Bastard B'awwwww! You're mean!

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: An Alan Smithee Nation, Dumb Ideologies, Fartsniffage, Glorious Hong Kong, Kowani, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Nobel Hobos 2, Nuroblav, The 502nd Ghost Division

Advertisement

Remove ads