Advertisement
by Jaunty tunes » Mon May 17, 2010 1:11 am
by Hydesland » Mon May 17, 2010 6:21 am
The Cat-Tribe wrote:My main problem with your reponses is two-fold: (1) you don't seem to be presenting a coherent, consitent viewpoint (in other words, your answers seem to just rebut the last thing I said and are inconsistent)
For example, are Africans a race? What other races are there? Your continued inability or unwillingness to define race and how one categorizes individuals by race (whether by scientific or "common" standards) undermines your entire set of posts.
by Formicidae Maximus » Mon May 17, 2010 7:52 am
You didn't answer my question. What do you call these differences? For that matter, you're hilariously arrogant in saying they don't equate 'Racial Differences', given that the definition of 'Race' varies widely depending on the subject it's used in.The Cat-Tribe wrote:1. You make a simple, but telling error. The existence of human differences -- even the ability to group populations -- doesn't mean these differences equate to racial differences. More importantly, depending on what differences one uses to group populations, one gets different results. There is no single word for differences between individuals and/or groups of individuals because there is no single set of such differences.
I've already spent two posts and not inconsiderable effort to explaining why 'Race' is a perfectly meaningful concept despite, simply by virtue of being a biological concept, not allowing 'Strict' divisions that aren't vaguely artificial. Frankly, I'm too lazy to repeat myself. Though I find it rather interesting that you insist on the necessity of strict 'Real' boundaries despite supposedly being aware that this is simply not possible in biology - why exactly should the standards for 'Race' be higher than the standards for 'Species', and infinitely higher than the standards for 'Genus', 'Family' or 'Tribe'?2. You make clear that you cannot define race, cannot say how many races there are, or how one categorizes someone by race. Your dissembling about 1900 mindsets doesn't distract from your inability to answer what should be any easy question for someone who insists race exists and is a meaningful scientific concept.
And I think you're illiterate for not getting what I'm actually saying. If you've your head so far up your ass that you cannot help but equal 'Not Equal' as 'OMG RACIST!!!11', as opposed to 'Not Equal', which means nothing more and nothing less than 'Different', and says absolutely nothing whatsoever about hierarchical relationships, then frankly, you can't be helped. German shepherds are not equal to chihuahuas. Does that mean that everyone who insists that the two aren't equal is a dog-racist who prefers one over the other?2a. This little tidbit reveals most of what we need to know about your mindset and motives and why they are unacceptable:Formicidae Maximus wrote:I take issues with the 'We're all totally equal' brainbug this idea causes in all too many people. We're not. Sure, we're not a hierarchical 'Ladder' of inferior and superior races, either - but standing on the same evolutionary step doesn't make us all equal.
I asked you before, and you still haven't replied. What are they?3. Human differences DO NOT EQUAL racial differences. Repeat that until you get it.
I said race is as meaningful as every biological classification other than species, and only mildly less so than species, and I provided examples of the 'Species' classification itself not being anywhere near as clear-cut as people tend to believe. I'm not entirely clear why you expect me to provide proof for something I've never said outside of your vivid imagination.4. Asked for proof that race is as meaningful as species, you offer nothing but your own semi-coherent ramblings. Not good enough.
Ever heard the term 'Anatomy'?5. Pray tell what are the "assorted [] criteria" by which we can reliably classify people by race?
Okay. Let me get this right. First, you're implying that whether something should be accepted as factual shouldn't be based on its factuality, but on whether it does more good that bad (A good case can be made that post-1890 physics should thus not be accepted, on account of arguably doing more bad than good). Secondly, you're implying that characteristics facilitating the survival of individuals in their local environment to the point where they resulted in significant phenotypical changes are 'Insignificant'.6. Asked to support your claim that "race is a 'useful' biological boundary" that does more good than harm, you offer only that we can predict a handful of seemingly insignificant information based on an individual's "race." Not responsive. Further, your assurance that we can make such predictions reliably is based on nothing but your own assertion.
So, what you're saying is that the term 'Race' is in fact used in medical and scientific research, and you've a host of these peer-reviewed studies available?7. Asked to name the alleged "fair number of scientists" who believe race is a valid biologically determined classification, you lamely reply that, in your use of secondary sources, you find "race" is still being used. That is non-responsive. Also, I have a host of peer-reviewed studies on the misuse and/or inaccurate use of race in medicine and scientific research. Don't make me go there.
Then why did you claim the study said something it, uh... Didn't say?8. I did not misread the study. I fucking quoted it. You misread it.
An article interpreting the studies other people have made is, sadly, not a study itself. It's doing exactly the same thing you do, and can consequently be criticised in the same fashion.9. When a study flatly says (for example) "race is social construct, not a scientific classification," "genetic diversity in skin color ... cannot be used for purposes of classification," "[c]haracterizations of race are thus purely social constructs," and "racial distinctions ... are not genetically discrete, are not reliably measured, and are not scientifically meaningful," it is NOT merely my interpretation of the study you are blithely dismissing. To say otherwise is delusional.
Yeah, because I should totally infringe copyright. What's so hard about spending some money to get it first hand?10. Feel free to provide links to Dawkins's work "making essentially all the points in favor of 'Race' [you] are making." Not my job to do your homework for you. And, by the way, Dawkins -- although I highly respect him -- (a) could be wrong on one subject and (b) doesn't exactly form an overwhelming scientific consensus on his own.
by Vittos Ordination » Mon May 17, 2010 9:00 am
Parnassus wrote:They're not arguing for a lack of differences. They're arguing that the group itself is a social construct.
For example, "white" means whatever distinguishes "white" from "non-white". "White" people have different skin colors, eye colors (well, some do), hair color (again, some do), more narrow noses (or some do) than "non-white" people.
But "white" people chose those traits precisely because they reinforce preconceived notions of in/out grouping. The differences are real, but the group label isn't. And, those out-of-group differences are focused upon, while other in-group differences are ignored, because they reinforce the group label that we created in the first place.
by Ifreann » Mon May 17, 2010 9:03 am
Jaunty tunes wrote:there are breeds of dog. Such as a bulldog, collie, greyhound and many more. If there are no human races by that logic there would also be no brreds of dog. They are instead all dogs.
Due to human differences there can be classifications into smaller sections of species. This would be best on genetics but because genetic traits are inherited and some are visible there is a decent metod of classifying races.
by The Cat-Tribe » Mon May 17, 2010 7:45 pm
Jaunty tunes wrote:there are breeds of dog. Such as a bulldog, collie, greyhound and many more. If there are no human races by that logic there would also be no brreds of dog. They are instead all dogs.
Due to human differences there can be classifications into smaller sections of species. This would be best on genetics but because genetic traits are inherited and some are visible there is a decent metod of classifying races.
by The Cat-Tribe » Mon May 17, 2010 7:48 pm
Yeah, because I should totally infringe copyright. What's so hard about spending some money to get it first hand?Formicidae Maximus wrote:You didn't answer my question. What do you call these differences? For that matter, you're hilariously arrogant in saying they don't equate 'Racial Differences', given that the definition of 'Race' varies widely depending on the subject it's used in.The Cat-Tribe wrote:1. You make a simple, but telling error. The existence of human differences -- even the ability to group populations -- doesn't mean these differences equate to racial differences. More importantly, depending on what differences one uses to group populations, one gets different results. There is no single word for differences between individuals and/or groups of individuals because there is no single set of such differences.
You happen to presume that the 'Standard' definition is somethhing Leopold II would've approved of. That is not the definition I'm arguing in favour of. Understand this before trying to make your points. You're running through open doors and thoroughly miss the ones I actually care about.I've already spent two posts and not inconsiderable effort to explaining why 'Race' is a perfectly meaningful concept despite, simply by virtue of being a biological concept, not allowing 'Strict' divisions that aren't vaguely artificial. Frankly, I'm too lazy to repeat myself. Though I find it rather interesting that you insist on the necessity of strict 'Real' boundaries despite supposedly being aware that this is simply not possible in biology - why exactly should the standards for 'Race' be higher than the standards for 'Species', and infinitely higher than the standards for 'Genus', 'Family' or 'Tribe'?2. You make clear that you cannot define race, cannot say how many races there are, or how one categorizes someone by race. Your dissembling about 1900 mindsets doesn't distract from your inability to answer what should be any easy question for someone who insists race exists and is a meaningful scientific concept.
You're artificially setting the goalposts higher for a certain concept because it happens to not befit your ideology. That's called dishonesty.And I think you're illiterate for not getting what I'm actually saying. If you've your head so far up your ass that you cannot help but equal 'Not Equal' as 'OMG RACIST!!!11', as opposed to 'Not Equal', which means nothing more and nothing less than 'Different', and says absolutely nothing whatsoever about hierarchical relationships, then frankly, you can't be helped. German shepherds are not equal to chihuahuas. Does that mean that everyone who insists that the two aren't equal is a dog-racist who prefers one over the other?2a. This little tidbit reveals most of what we need to know about your mindset and motives and why they are unacceptable:Formicidae Maximus wrote:I take issues with the 'We're all totally equal' brainbug this idea causes in all too many people. We're not. Sure, we're not a hierarchical 'Ladder' of inferior and superior races, either - but standing on the same evolutionary step doesn't make us all equal.
That's what you're saying, and it's retarded. If you want to debate ideology... Well, admittedly, NSG is exactly the right place for you. But ideology is not science. It is the intentional (Miss-)interpretation of factual data to suit one's worldview.
And if you wish to debate ideology, you've no right to pretend that you're really debating science (Though, like all ideologists, you'll do it, anyway). You're simply bullshitting on a grand scale, no different from a, say, white supremacist. Just from the other end of the spectrum.I asked you before, and you still haven't replied. What are they?3. Human differences DO NOT EQUAL racial differences. Repeat that until you get it.I said race is as meaningful as every biological classification other than species, and only mildly less so than species, and I provided examples of the 'Species' classification itself not being anywhere near as clear-cut as people tend to believe. I'm not entirely clear why you expect me to provide proof for something I've never said outside of your vivid imagination.4. Asked for proof that race is as meaningful as species, you offer nothing but your own semi-coherent ramblings. Not good enough.Ever heard the term 'Anatomy'?5. Pray tell what are the "assorted [] criteria" by which we can reliably classify people by race?Okay. Let me get this right. First, you're implying that whether something should be accepted as factual shouldn't be based on its factuality, but on whether it does more good that bad (A good case can be made that post-1890 physics should thus not be accepted, on account of arguably doing more bad than good). Secondly, you're implying that characteristics facilitating the survival of individuals in their local environment to the point where they resulted in significant phenotypical changes are 'Insignificant'.6. Asked to support your claim that "race is a 'useful' biological boundary" that does more good than harm, you offer only that we can predict a handful of seemingly insignificant information based on an individual's "race." Not responsive. Further, your assurance that we can make such predictions reliably is based on nothing but your own assertion.
Survival is insignificant. Reproductive fitness is insignificant.
You complained about me plain lol'ing. But you know what? I'll do it again.
lolSo, what you're saying is that the term 'Race' is in fact used in medical and scientific research, and you've a host of these peer-reviewed studies available?7. Asked to name the alleged "fair number of scientists" who believe race is a valid biologically determined classification, you lamely reply that, in your use of secondary sources, you find "race" is still being used. That is non-responsive. Also, I have a host of peer-reviewed studies on the misuse and/or inaccurate use of race in medicine and scientific research. Don't make me go there.
Well, that answers your own question, doesn't it?Then why did you claim the study said something it, uh... Didn't say?8. I did not misread the study. I fucking quoted it. You misread it.An article interpreting the studies other people have made is, sadly, not a study itself. It's doing exactly the same thing you do, and can consequently be criticised in the same fashion.9. When a study flatly says (for example) "race is social construct, not a scientific classification," "genetic diversity in skin color ... cannot be used for purposes of classification," "[c]haracterizations of race are thus purely social constructs," and "racial distinctions ... are not genetically discrete, are not reliably measured, and are not scientifically meaningful," it is NOT merely my interpretation of the study you are blithely dismissing. To say otherwise is delusional.10. Feel free to provide links to Dawkins's work "making essentially all the points in favor of 'Race' [you] are making." Not my job to do your homework for you. And, by the way, Dawkins -- although I highly respect him -- (a) could be wrong on one subject and (b) doesn't exactly form an overwhelming scientific consensus on his own.
by Ryadn » Mon May 17, 2010 7:59 pm
Jaunty tunes wrote:there are breeds of dog. Such as a bulldog, collie, greyhound and many more. If there are no human races by that logic there would also be no brreds of dog. They are instead all dogs.
by Ryadn » Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:26 pm
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?
by Tungookska » Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:30 pm
by Ryadn » Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:35 pm
Tungookska wrote:zombie threads are a social construct without any scientific support
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, CPO, Floofybit, Herador, Hurdergaryp, Ifreann, Luziyca, Nova Zueratopia, Olmanar, Plan Neonie, Poliski, Siluvia, Southland, Tarsonis, The Russian Nation, The Vooperian Union, X3-U, Zancostan
Advertisement