That's racist!

[bman8810]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Tell me, what makes up a race? "Scientists" used to think there was such a thing, but upon further examination, they found that there really is no such thing. Provide me with evidence of the validity of such a term, and I will discuss it with you. However, I beseech you to first consider that more learned people are now discussing the differences between groups of people using 3 separate criteria: ethnicity, nationality, and culture. It is actually along these three lines that make up the major differences between people. For instance, it is extremely fallacious to call all white people one group, as it is to call all black people one group. To say that an Irishman is within the same group as a Romanian man is ludicrous, there are by far more differences than similarities. The same goes for saying that an American black man is in the same group as an African; both men might have the same ethnicity, but the differences in culture and the implications of their different nationalities make them about as similar as an apple to a cucumber.

Race (for humans) is a concept that allows us to quickly distinguish between various people. At one time that was solely skin color. As we progressed we realized that skin color was not nearly enough to encompass all that a person is. As such, race is now a much more complicated topic. Here is the current US Census Bureau definition. However, I can guarantee you that in ten years it will be different.

From Wikipedia: The OMB defines the concept of race as outlined for the US Census as not "scientific or anthropological" and takes into account "social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry", using "appropriate scientific methodologies" that are not "primarily biological or genetic in reference."

As far as it being ridiculous to group an Irishman and a Romanian? It is entirely about your goal. If your goal was to separate based upon an umbrella color (i.e. white, black, red, orange, etc) then you are correct and have distinguished correctly. However, you could also say that their skin tones do not match exactly and that it is now an incorrect grouping. Hell, you can take two Irishmen and say they don't belong in the same grouping. You are entirely too hung up on this notion that there is a "correct" way to differentiate between people. There isn't. It is entirely about motives, goals, assumptions made, and whether it is ethically correct to do so.

[Japan]

^^^^^

The classic definition of race is arbitrary. Largely because of the colonial evil that has been done with the backing of that definition, the word "race" has fallen out of favor. "Race" isn't the preferred scientific term, as its definition is extremely loose. For example, "native american" is often called a race, but certain tribes experienced extreme genetic isolation and are not much more genetically comparable to the Apache than they are to us.

So people who say races don't exist aren't wrong, but they are only correct on a boring semantic technicality.

The idea of a unique evolutionary history for grouped populations is scientifically valid. Race would sure be a convenient term for differentiating between these populations, but it's been hijacked by ignorant rednecks and RL bloob reactionaries who are more concerned about arguing with retards than actually furthering human understanding. The word just has too much history to be useful, as long as we live among such shitheads.

tl;dr this whole thing is a semantic argument

[wehrmacht]

O god, here comes more liberal idiocy that there is no such thing as different races. Homo sapien sapiens have been around something like 50,000 years. We domesticated an animal called the dog from the wolf and the amount of time it took to create all those different breeds all with *EXTREMELY DIFFERENT* instinctual traits, personalities, aggressiveness, etc did not take very long at all. All that stuff is built into their genes so of course there are enormous differences in different human races.

There was Mitochondrial Eve in Africa (LO haplogroup) which spawned the L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6 groups.

L3 divided into Haplogroup M and N which left africa while the L's stayed.

N group is european whites.

M turned into asians, indians, mexicans, etc

And that's all there is too it.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you want to find the most primitive people on earth, you go back to the source of where it all began where the L groups still exist to this day. Science is a bitch and it's not supposed to be politically correct. It's offensive. Too bad liberals just stick their heads in the sand and pretend like it doesn't exist:


[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Some nations live in skyscrapers, some live in mud huts. The reason for this isn't because all humans are equal. Natural selection doesn't create equality.


[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Now lets end this with the destruction of another liberal myth. "Genes, Not Culture: Why the Japanese don't loot":

http://www.vdare.com/taylor/110318_japanese.htm

"“Diversity” is a source of conflict and tension, not strength, and the Japanese know it. Thanks to very restrictive immigration, Japan is one of the most homogeneous nations on earth. Its people know that the country belongs to all of them, and they treat it and each other that way"

Do I also need to remind you that we're 99% equal in genetics to this creature? You can be extremely closely related and still have inherent genetic traits that are extremely different.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I can't wait for all the whining from San Francisco hairdressers that occurs due to this thread. I'm sure 0 of their complaints will be backed with facts either. And by the way, nothing in this post advocates hatred or murder or death or anything like that. All I did was list what the facts of human evolution are before some fool spams "racism".

[Rilkean]

Originally Posted by wehrmacht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I can't wait for all the whining from San Francisco hairdressers that occurs due to this thread. I'm sure 0 of their complaints will be backed with facts either.

Here's some very half assed whining from a san francisco molecular biologist:

1: There are multiple theories of how humans spread throughout the continents and not ONE has been proven yet, not one. There is one strongly supported by the scientific community but even we admit that it is simply an educated guess and nothing more; much different from the big bang theory.

2:
"Some nations live in skyscrapers, some live in mud huts. The reason for this isn't because all humans are equal. Natural selection doesn't create equality."

NATURAL SELECTION / EVOLUTION DOES NOT DENOTE PROGRESS. EVOLUTION IS MOSTLY RANDOM. That is the first thing you learn in evolutionary science. You are a really disgusting racist person, whether or not you admit it.

You have a classic case of Lamarck syndrome [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.][You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.][You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Poverty ("huts", "IQ" (if you even believe standardized testing to be representative of intelligence in the first place)) is an example of soft inheritance.

[Abacab "The REAL truth"]

Originally Posted by Rilkean [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here's some very half assed whining from a san francisco molecular biologist:

1: There are multiple theories of how humans spread throughout the continents and not ONE has been proven yet, not one. There is one strongly supported by the scientific community but even we admit that it is simply an educated guess and nothing more; much different from the big bang theory.

2:
"Some nations live in skyscrapers, some live in mud huts. The reason for this isn't because all humans are equal. Natural selection doesn't create equality."

NATURAL SELECTION / EVOLUTION DOES NOT DENOTE PROGRESS. EVOLUTION IS MOSTLY RANDOM. That is the first thing you learn in evolutionary science. You are a really disgusting racist person, whether or not you admit it.

You have a classic case of Lamarck syndrome [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.][You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.][You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Poverty ("huts", "IQ" (if you even believe standardized testing to be representative of intelligence in the first place)) is an example of soft inheritance.

Resources =/= evolution

Everyone from native african's to aborigines knew how to construct and build tools, the only reason certain cultures advanced further than other cultures was due to resource allocation, and when certain continents had an abundance of copper, iron, coal, lumber etc. they progressed faster than people living in areas where it's just stone and sand. So it was easier to forge copper weapons and go slay people still using stone, take their land, enslave their people to build better copper weapons, the whole notion of human progress has been built on allocating and warring over resource, and subjugating "inferior" people which were less technologically advanced.

[Aarone]

Originally Posted by Abacab "The REAL truth" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Everyone from native african's to aborigines knew how to construct and build tools, the only reason certain cultures advanced further than other cultures was do to resource, and when certain continents had an abundance of copper, iron, coal, lumber etc. they progressed faster than people living in areas where it's just stone and sand.

Of course, Abacab gained his extensive degrees in anthropology through a relentless study of Sid Meier's Civilization series....

[Abacab "The REAL truth"]

Originally Posted by Aarone [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Of course, Abacab gained his extensive degrees in anthropology through a relentless study of Sid Meier's Civilization series....

Ignorant people don't read books about the subject

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nor do they understand common sense that those who found harder more resilient materials would shit all over people who did not, a 10 year old with downs even understands that an iron bar breaks rocks, while a rock cannot break an iron bar.

[Potus]

Originally Posted by wehrmacht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're obviously not preaching mathematical certainty to people or even pseudo certainty - consensus. Everyone knows consensus in non-mathematical fields is nothing but far left, tenured professors all trying to act as information gatekeepers pushing some kind of social ideology. Usually it's collectivism and communism. It's hard to assimilate everyone into collectivism without also pushing the lie that everyone on earth is also identical.

I'm in the academic community and you're totally right. When the revolution comes you're going to be the first against the wall. My mulatto wife makes me apologize for slavery before we have sex.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by bman8810 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Race (for humans) is a concept that allows us to quickly distinguish between various people. At one time that was solely skin color. As we progressed we realized that skin color was not nearly enough to encompass all that a person is. As such, race is now a much more complicated topic. Here is the current US Census Bureau definition. However, I can guarantee you that in ten years it will be different.

From Wikipedia: The OMB defines the concept of race as outlined for the US Census as not "scientific or anthropological" and takes into account "social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry", using "appropriate scientific methodologies" that are not "primarily biological or genetic in reference."

As far as it being ridiculous to group an Irishman and a Romanian? It is entirely about your goal. If your goal was to separate based upon an umbrella color (i.e. white, black, red, orange, etc) then you are correct and have distinguished correctly. However, you could also say that their skin tones do not match exactly and that it is now an incorrect grouping. Hell, you can take two Irishmen and say they don't belong in the same grouping. You are entirely too hung up on this notion that there is a "correct" way to differentiate between people. There isn't. It is entirely about motives, goals, assumptions made, and whether it is ethically correct to do so.

Originally Posted by Japan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

^^^^^

The classic definition of race is arbitrary. Largely because of the colonial evil that has been done with the backing of that definition, the word "race" has fallen out of favor. "Race" isn't the preferred scientific term, as its definition is extremely loose. For example, "native american" is often called a race, but certain tribes experienced extreme genetic isolation and are not much more genetically comparable to the Apache than they are to us.

So people who say races don't exist aren't wrong, but they are only correct on a boring semantic technicality.

The idea of a unique evolutionary history for grouped populations is scientifically valid. Race would sure be a convenient term for differentiating between these populations, but it's been hijacked by ignorant rednecks and RL bloob reactionaries who are more concerned about arguing with retards than actually furthering human understanding. The word just has too much history to be useful, as long as we live among such shitheads.

tl;dr this whole thing is a semantic argument

Nether one of you has defined what a race is, so I am going to assume that there is in fact no such thing.

Give me a one (two at most?) sentence clear cut definition of what a race is, and I might believe that you two aren't completely idiotic..

[Japan]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Give me a one (two at most?) sentence clear cut definition of what a race is, and I might believe that you two aren't completely idiotic..

Evolutionary descent groups. Defined and organized by an arbitrary limit of genetic concordance instead of culture and imperial pseudoscience.