Racism is baseless

...a statement which is 100% political and not scientific, hence invalid.

It looks there's a plague all around these fora of people saying "the content of my bible is true and this proves my bible to be true". That may involve Jesus, 9/11 and a lot of things including "race" but it's all the same **** with the same causes: human defect.

People of the race bred in the Perfidious Albion and their Germanic cousins are very prone to make this mistake :p;):D.
 
Feel free to post any evidence you have supporting the concept of race. Do you believe I haven't researched this topic extensively, including scientific papers which explode the myth of race?

I'll stick by the assertion made in my signature below.
 
Vortigern99 said:
Feel free to post any evidence you have supporting the concept of race. Do you believe I haven't researched this topic extensively, including scientific papers which explode the myth of race?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that looks to be an even research :rolleyes:

When your research departs from the conclusion you usually get stuck with a wrong conclusion.

Vortigern99 said:
I'll stick by the assertion made in my signature below.
Click to expand...

My reading glasses broke.
 
aleCcowaN said:
Yeah, that looks to be an even research :rolleyes:

When your research departs from the conclusion you usually get stuck with a wrong conclusion.

My reading glasses broke.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything to add to the discussion apart from contrarian nonsense?

FWIW, I entered into a study on this question from the same standpoint you now occupy. The science convinced me, not some predisposition to believe it.
 
Vortigern99 said:
Do you have anything to add to the discussion apart from contrarian nonsense?
Click to expand...

Of course, 10 times the lot I already added. When something intelligent is said and the posts don't boil down to "this is the truth, truth, truth! ev'rybody gotta know, oh, oh!" I'll provide that. So far it seems it's gonna be a dozen posts interchanged with every converted like yourself that can be summarize "I say yes. I say no"

Vortigern99 said:
FWIW, I entered into a study on this question from the same standpoint you now occupy. The science convinced me, not some predisposition to believe it.
Click to expand...

<snip>
And for Darwin I think it must be last working neuron of any person the one that tells him that is sound to say "I already studied the subject and came to this conclusion. What have you to back your own conclusions?" in a written forum, especially one about scepticism.


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rules 0/12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
aleCcowaN said:
Of course, 10 times the lot I already added. When something intelligent is said and the posts don't boil down to "this is the truth, truth, truth! ev'rybody gotta know, oh, oh!" I'll provide that. So far it seems it's gonna be a dozen posts interchanged with every converted like yourself that can be summarize "I say yes. I say no"



<snip>
And for Darwin I think it must be last working neuron of any person the one that tells him that is sound to say "I already studied the subject and came to this conclusion. What have you to back your own conclusions?" in a written forum, especially one about scepticism.
Click to expand...

Ad hominems and poisoning the well noted! This certainly has been enlightening.


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Quoted post edited to conform.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
aleCcowaN said:
^
|
|
|



Done in #127.

There is a legal definition in your country. Why don't you look for it?
Click to expand...

Do you have "evidence" that's not 50 years old?

Recognizing that people have divided up the world according to races is not the same things as saying that biological races are real.
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
Do you have "evidence" that's not 50 years old?

Recognizing that people have suicides up world according to races is not the same things as saying that biological races are real.
Click to expand...

Races are operatively defined in a certain way, hence, they exist. It's this whole **** of "races are not real" -and the political correctness in steroids which inspired it- the thing disconnected from reality.

Do you have any modern version of Newton's first law for low speeds? It's from the umpteenth century, yellow old!
 
I'll take a different angle. That's the political definition of race, if I'm understanding correctly. I tend toward the biological definition. Nevermind all the hoopla about skin color, who's best, all that stuff.

When any animal or plant is isolated so it breeds primarily with related animals/plants, a race/landrace/variety develops. Not really possible to predict what traits will change. Might be size, might not, might be skin color, might not, might be disease resistance (not visible on the outside at all) or something odd like a tendency toward colorblindness or ingrown toenails. The isolated group will become more fit for its environment plus there will be unpredictable genetic drift.

As long as conditions remain the same, there will be a race. When members of the species who were isolated elsewhere come into contact with them, they'll say, "Oo look! A different race. Let's kill them." Well, hopefully not that last part. When they say, "let's have sex with them," the race gradually disappears and becomes more like whatever the other population had become, beause of course it was isolated and doing its own thing with fitness and drift.

Then it starts all over again, as new isolations occur. Right now, I think we're in a situation where all the old isolations have disappeared or are disappearing quickly, with all the races from different continents rarely separated as they used to be. And of course, those races came and went in their own day as "Africans" spread into Europe, Europeans spread into Asia, Asians spread into North and South America, creating larger or smaller separations, with races as large as Europeans or as medium as Mediterraneans or as small and brief as the Smith clan who've lived in that one area on the mountaintop for all those generations. Some races become stable for a while, some you blink and they're gone (on a geological scale).

That would be so easy to see, if people didn't get all upset at the mere mention we weren't all genetically identical and so afraid of pointing out there's anything like race. Come on. We're like any other living thing. Isolation plus genetic drift creates race, or whatever you want to call it.
 
Last edited:
aleCcowaN said:
Races are operatively defined in a certain way, hence, they exist. It's this whole **** of "races are not real" -and the political correctness in steroids which inspired it- the thing disconnected from reality.

Do you have any modern version of Newton's first law for low speeds? It's from the umpteenth century, yellow old!
Click to expand...

Races exist as a sociopolitical construct and as a limited means of identifying groups of people with a shared recent ancestry. Assigning race is a method of cataloguing peoples, like a library system. It's convenient and useful for sociopolitical purposes.

However, genetically there is no empirical validity to the concept. According to Jonathan Marks (Marks, Jonathan (2008). "Race: Past, present and future. Chapter 1". In Koenig, Barbara; Soo-Jin Lee, Sandra; Richardson, Sarah S. Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age. Rutgers University Press.):

By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic – that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal – that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left – the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal – was very small.

A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist.
​

There are tens of thousands of pages devoted to analysis of this question. Since 1989, I've read a few hundred of them, and I find the conclusions of the vast majority of anthropologists and biologists persuasive -- namely that the concept of race is naive, simplistic and/or outright false.

The two links so far provided by AlecCowan do nothing to dissuade me from that conclusion.
 
Vortigern99 said:
By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic – that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal – that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left – the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal – was very small.

A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist.
​
Click to expand...

Now we're stating to speak the same language.

Vortigern99 said:
There are tens of thousands of pages devoted to analysis of this question. Since 1989, I've read a few hundred of them, and I find the conclusions of the vast majority of anthropologists and biologists persuasive -- namely that the concept of race is naive, simplistic and/or outright false.

The two links so far provided by AlecCowan do nothing to dissuade me from that conclusion.
Click to expand...

...and now we diverge again. I'm sure the anthropologist you read were a fine selection of all what the Anglosphere has to offer. The heavily contaminated and biased lexicon is evidence of that. It has to be hard to live in a culture where people don't die but pass away -with equally rotting results-. A world where all the words have to be carefully carved.
 
aleCcowaN said:
I essentially Doe!!! I'm tallying you banana until day light come and ya wan go home.

You few lot are getting just the kind of reply you deserve in full reflection of your epistemological level.
Click to expand...

You are pretty haughty for someone who refuses to distinguish between the sociopolitics of race and the biology of race. The legislation you cited deals with to sociopolitics of race while the discussion we're having addresses the biology of race.

No-one is the denying that the sociopolitics of race is real. We are just disputing that there is any coherent biological basis for the sociopolitics.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom