Racial controversy

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Ramo


Why would they? The burden of proof is on you.

I'm posing a possibility, not a definite proof. You are posing the impossibility and opposing the possibility; hence you have to prove your point.

Atheism is morally righteous because it liberates people from the authority of doctrine, to seek a morality rooted in compassion for other human beings. Atheists are no less "in line" (by that, I mean they don't committ more murders, etc.) than theists.

Morality can be either good or bad. Just because it's rooted in a religious doctrine doesn't make it good, and just because it isn't doesn't make it bad.

Exactly... in the same way that the stripping away of deism did not diminish morality, neither would investigations into human phenotypes diminish our celebration of human diversity, to borrow a PC term.

Again, that post wasn't addressing the truthfulness of your claims. Just whether anyone has any business investigating them.

Well... that's a different matter then. So you're conceding that such differences in race are possible?

But the phenotypic trends often run counter to racial classifications.

Like?
Do you mean things like putting Khoisans under blacks, for instance?

If so, then that's a mis-classification. But the scientific need for classification remains.

[Ramo]

I'm posing a possibility, not a definite proof. You are posing the impossibility and opposing the possibility; hence you have to prove your point.

No I don't. I have shown you why there's absolutely no reason to believe it is so, and that's all I can do. It's impossible to prove a negative since I can't attribute for all possible causes.

Exactly... in the same way that the stripping away of deism did not diminish morality, neither would investigations into human phenotypes diminish our celebration of human diversity, to borrow a PC term.

Saying that showing blacks are more violent than whites would help to "celebrate diversity" is totally absurd.

Well... that's a different matter then. So you're conceding that such differences in race are possible?

I've never asserted anything is impossible. I'd say that differences in aggressiveness or intelligence between "races" are extremely improbable, though. Just like the pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon is possible but improbable.

The specific purpose of the post was to address the tastefulness of the subject.

Like?
Do you mean things like putting Khoisans under blacks, for instance?

If so, then that's a mis-classification. But the scientific need for classification remains.

Like saying blacks are one "race" when they are extremely genetically diverse.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

It is a meaningless term as far as humans are concerned. Other species do have races, however. The term, therefore has meaning in relation to biologists.

So? give an example of a species whose members can't always interbreed.

Besides, so what term are you going to use instead of human races? "Phenotypical groups"? That's just pointless political correctness.

BTW, in some cases, members of different species in the same genus can interbreed (horses and donkeys, lions and tigers). Races aren't incapable of interbreeding, they simply won't interbreed. (My previous use of can't was an overstatement.)

Mules and ligers, btw, are sterile.

Offspring between subspecies however, like the domestic and Przewalski's horse, are not sterile.

Same goes for human phenotypical groups. And we call this "race".

As I pointed out twice before in this thread alone, there is a biological term and a social term. What is happening, is that biological traits are being ascribed to social catagories. This is what I am arguing against. You might as well assert that there are biological differences between the rich and poor. It makes as much sense.

There ARE biological differences between races (or whatever you decide to call them). I would also disagree with equating biological and social terms, but biology is biology - there are differences, there are trends, and closing your eyes won't make them go away.

And don't assert you stand for the rest of the world. That the general public might use a word one way doesn't mean that the word isn't used scientifically another way. And the general public, as a whole, doesn't use the word that was as there is a strong push to use only the scientific definition.

So? How would you propose be the solution to the problem of the people of the world seeing "race" when you don't?
People have eyes. They can see phenotypical differences, and like all humans, they classify. Any struggle against racism should be based on philosophies like human dignity, not a denial of the existence of race. Only then would such a struggle both make sense scientifically and appeal to the public.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Ramo


No I don't. I have shown you why there's absolutely no reason to believe it is so, and that's all I can do. It's impossible to prove a negative since I can't attribute for all possible causes.

There is reason to believe it so: different breeds of dogs have different temperaments.

Saying that showing blacks are more violent than whites would help to "celebrate diversity" is totally absurd.

Never did I say that blacks are more violent than whites. "Violence" isn't exactly a genetic trait either. But melanin productions certainly isn't the only trait found in the human genome.

If you think research into area won't benefit humankind - fine. But the truth's there, whether or not human beings want to find it.

Anyway, in a few thousand years everyone will be one shade of brown.

I've never asserted anything is impossible. I'd say that differences in aggressiveness or intelligence between "races" are extremely improbable, though. Just like the pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon is possible but improbable.

The specific purpose of the post was to address the tastefulness of the subject.

But why would they be improbable?

Like saying blacks are one "race" when they are extremely genetically diverse.

Exactly, as I said, that's a misclassification. But that does not remove the need for scientific classification.

[Carver]

Originally posted by ranskaldan

Race refers to the trends that you find among people from different continents/regions. The very reason why you can even talk of "blacks", "Mexicans", "Chinese" etc is because there are certain features that blacks, Mexicans and Chinese tend to have. This is termed "race", and is purely a scientific term, in the same way we talk of "strains" or "breeds".

I was trying to stay away from this racebait fest, but you are a vucking idiot. There is absolutely nothing scientific about "racial" classifications. There is no knowledgeable means of stating "a 'white' person's DNA will have these qualities and a 'black' person's DNA will have these".

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR VARIOUS HUMAM 'RACES'.

Knowledgeable geneticists will tell you that there is more variation within each 'race' than there are between 'races'.

Race is a social construct. Some Europeans call Gypsies black.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Carver


I was trying to stay away from this racebait fest, but you are a vucking idiot. There is absolutely nothing scientific about "racial" classifications. There is no knowledgeable means of stating "a 'white' person's DNA will have these qualities and a 'black' person's DNA will have these".

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR VARIOUS HUMAM 'RACES'.

Knowledgeable geneticists will tell you that there is more variation within each 'race' than there are between 'races'.

Race is a social construct. Some Europeans call Gypsies black.

ARGH! A third person to argue against!!!

Anyway, you might want to check your language

And did I tell you that you just discounted every single shred of scientific classification? Indeed, there is more similarity between gallium and germanium than between gallium and sodium! Hence terms like "metal", "non-metal", "energy", "matter", "plant", "animal", "white dwarf", "red giant" etc are all meaningless!

Please... there's an organ between your ears. At least, notice its existence.

Oh yes: if you haven't noticed yet, black people have more melanin and thicker lips, as well as a different hair structure and different chances of sickle-cell anemia, than white people.

[Ramo]

There is reason to believe it so: different breeds of dogs have different temperaments.

Saying that differences in humany are similar to breeds of dogs is absurd. It's not true in the least, and certainly is no basis for anything.

Never did I say that blacks are more violent than whites.

Cali did. That was the point of the thread.

"Violence" isn't exactly a genetic trait either.

Sure it is. Just about everything, to some extent, is a genetic trait (even if it takes thousands of genes to represent).

But melanin productions certainly isn't the only trait found in the human genome.

I never asserted that.

If you think research into area won't benefit humankind - fine. But the truth's there, whether or not human beings want to find it.

What truth? Differences in agressiveness or intelligence aren't there, and can't be investigated. Other differences are there (for instance, resistances to certain diseases), and are being investigated.

But why would they be improbable?

I've already have explained why; there are no conceivable selective differentials on these traits.

Exactly, as I said, that's a misclassification. But that does not remove the need for scientific classification.

What are purposes of this "scientific" classification? Since differences in peoples are relatively insignificant, and there are hardly any clear lines between them.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
So? How would you propose be the solution to the problem of the people of the world seeing "race" when you don't?
People have eyes. They can see phenotypical differences, and like all humans, they classify. Any struggle against racism should be based on philosophies like human dignity, not a denial of the existence of race. Only then would such a struggle both make sense scientifically and appeal to the public.

One hundred years ago, there was a German race, a French race, a Jewish race, etc. Everyone knew this to be true, despite the fact that today we know it to have been nonesense. The fact that people today still call something race, doesn't mean it inherently has value.

Race, as you are discussing, is a social catagory. If you were Chinese and you lived in California in the 1860s, legally you were Black. There was no Asian race in the California legal system.

Over time, in the United States, race has come to be equated with phenotype. We no longer talk about the Slavic "race" or the Scandinavian "race." We think of our own catagories as eternal and immutable, when in fact they are constantly changing. Only ten years ago, there was no multiracial catagory in the census. In Louisiania there are legal definitions of mulattos, quadroons, and octoroons. These are legal catagories people are placed in depending on the amount of African and European ancestry they have.

Furthermore, while it is fairly easy to say that an Icelander and a Mongol are "different races" it's not so easy to say that about say, and Icelander and an Italian, or an Italian and an Arab or an Arab and a Persian or a Perisan and a Turk or a Turk and a Mongol. and yet we smoothly transitioned from one to the other.

There are no clearly demarked races. It only seems that way when you throw Northern Europeans together with Sub-Saharan Africans, i.e., "opposite" ends of the spectrum.

In other words, people's eyes fool them.

[ranskaldan]

che:

In that respect I would agree with you. Race is a continuum, not distinct categories.

Of course, at far enough distances, notable differences begin to arise. These differences are then termed the "typical features" of this-or-that race.

I have no problem describing someone's features as "somewhat Asian but also Slavic." I don't think races are pigeon-holing categories either, but they're there nontheless.

[tinyp3nis]

Good luck ranskaldan, I am watching

Funny how

Cali did. That was the point of the thread.

And

The specific purpose of the post was to address the tastefulness of the subject.

Notice the words post and thread.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Ramo


Saying that differences in humany are similar to breeds of dogs is absurd. It's not true in the least, and certainly is no basis for anything.

Why?
They are totally analogous. The only difference is that dog breeds have many more differences among themselves than human races.

Cali did. That was the point of the thread.

As far as I could see, he was asserting the possibility, not the certainty.

Sure it is. Just about everything, to some extent, is a genetic trait (even if it takes thousands of genes to represent).

I never asserted that.

Then why would you categorically deny the possibility of a certain phenotype having variations?

What truth? Differences in agressiveness or intelligence aren't there, and can't be investigated. Other differences are there (for instance, resistances to certain diseases), and are being investigated.

If they aren't being investigated, how do you know they aren't there?
I'm not saying that it's a good thing if they're there, but how do you know they aren't?

I've already have explained why; there are no conceivable selective differentials on these traits.

They can arise as side-effects due to changes in hormonal levels, for instance.

What are purposes of this "scientific" classification? Since differences in peoples are relatively insignificant, and there are hardly any clear lines between them.

Scientific interest?

The same reason why we have comparative religion, or linguistics.

[Ramo]

Notice the words post and thread.

What about them? The post to which I'm referring to was addressing if the idea that Cali's assertion in the beginning of the thread were valid. It's odd how people obsessed with "race" are prone to paranoia.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Good luck ranskaldan, I am watching

Funny how

And

Notice the words post and thread.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
I don't think races are pigeon-holing categories either, but they're there nontheless.

But many people do think that way. When people start talking about behavioral traits or mental capacities of specific "races" that discusssion needs to be smashed in the bud by pointing out that race, as a social catagory for human beings is completely arbitrary. You can't point to any spot on the spectrum and say, this group is distinct. You know that, I know that, but some people here don't seem to know that. And once you toss in all the interbreeding between nations, tribs, etc. that goes on, it gets even more muddied.

Occam's razor says that the simplist explanation is most likely the actual one. When we have simple explanations for violent crime (poverty) and for lower test scores (poor schools) which do an excellent job, why look for the explanation in human genetics? Which I'm not saying you're doing, but which is the purpose of this thread.

Frankly, almost everyone who posits biological determinism has an agenda. In nearly ever case of this argument being raised in the past thirty years, the people raising the argument have been traced to white supremicist organizations. Even one of the authors of The Bell Curve was previously a member of a white supremacy organization.

When serious scientists discuss the question, they almost all say that no measurable differences have been discovered between the races, and yet a particular group continues to raise the same old worn arguments again and again (and generally using the same old studies), you have to wonder what they really want? Are they really trying to explore a question scientifially or are they trying to create a justification fo racism?

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Ramo


What about them? The post to which I'm referring to was addressing if the idea that Cali's assertion in the beginning of the thread were valid. It's odd how people obsessed with "race" are prone to paranoia.

I have to ask, did you understand my point ?