Proof that the GMs are Racist

[pickled_heretic]

i'll take the image spam as a concession of defeat, thank you for the thoroughly enjoyable discourse.

[loopholbrook]

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

i'll take the image spam as a concession of defeat, thank you for the thoroughly enjoyable discourse.

I'll take this post spam as a concession of defeat, thank you for the thoroughly enjoyable discourse.

[pickled_heretic]

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

I'll take this post spam as a concession of defeat, thank you for the thoroughly enjoyable discourse.

the fact that any definition at all exists in the dictionary is all the proof that i need that race (e.g. the concept of race as a means of distinguishing people based on genetically heritable appearances such as ethnicity) exists. we should really find something more constructive to talk about, like whether or not these concepts are valid.

[Hasbinbad]

pickled_heretic confirmed to be the worst racist in this community.

[pickled_heretic]

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

pickled_heretic confirmed to be the worst racist in this community.

the only thing that can beat being called a racist:

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

[Daldolma]

HBB, you're incorrect about whether there is a genetic basis for race. The idea that there is no genetic basis for race is an outdated concept with roots in fear of racism. There clearly is genetic basis for race. That's not to say that there's a "Black gene" or a "White gene" or an "Asian gene", but there are sets of genetic expressions that lend themselves to peoples of a certain ancestry -- read: race -- more than others.

The most significant genetic differences are between Eurasian, African, and East Asian peoples. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2009062200350

Yet it's still possible to find genetic nuance within those populations. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/sc...in&oref=slogin

[Hasbinbad]

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

HBB, you're incorrect about whether there is a genetic basis for race. The idea that there is no genetic basis for race is an outdated concept with roots in fear of racism. There clearly is genetic basis for race. That's not to say that there's a "Black gene" or a "White gene" or an "Asian gene", but there are sets of genetic expressions that lend themselves to peoples of a certain ancestry -- read: race -- more than others.

The most significant genetic differences are between Eurasian, African, and East Asian peoples. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2009062200350

Yet it's still possible to find genetic nuance within those populations. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/sc...in&oref=slogin

You're confusing ethnicity with race. "Race" is based on external physical characteristics, primarily skin tone (ex. "whites," "blacks."). It is common knowledge that there is more genetic variation within these arbitrarily assigned groups than when you compare any ethnic group with another.

For an example, I will use arbitrary numbers to illustrate:

When you compare 100 people of Irish Gaelic ethnicity to 100 people of Japanese ethnicity, you find 1,000 genetic markers (usually viral) difference.

When you compare 100 people who are "black" to another 100 people who are "black," you find 2,000 genetic markers (usually viral) difference.

This is because people who are "black" can be from many ethnic groups: various african ethnicities, various central and south american ethnicities, various asian and pacific islander ethnicities may also have the characteristics of "black." Similarly, people who are "white" may be from spain, norway, belarus, etc., all with a high amount of variation between groups.

Ergo, classifying people on the basis of skin color or other external traits is purely subjective, and without any scientific basis.

[pickled_heretic]

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

"Race" is based on external physical characteristics, primarily skin tone (ex. "whites," "blacks.").

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

Ergo, classifying people on the basis of skin color or other external traits is purely subjective, and without any scientific basis.

These two statements are mutually exclusive. Either race can be based on external physical characteristics (an empirical fact) or it cannot (purely subjective).

Thanks for coming everyone

[Daldolma]

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

You're confusing ethnicity with race. "Race" is based on external physical characteristics, primarily skin tone (ex. "whites," "blacks."). It is common knowledge that there is more genetic variation within these arbitrarily assigned groups than when you compare any ethnic group with another.

For an example, I will use arbitrary numbers to illustrate:

When you compare 100 people of Irish Gaelic ethnicity to 100 people of Japanese ethnicity, you find 1,000 genetic markers (usually viral) difference.

When you compare 100 people who are "black" to another 100 people who are "black," you find 2,000 genetic markers (usually viral) difference.

This is because people who are "black" can be from many ethnic groups: various african ethnicities, various central and south american ethnicities, various asian and pacific islander ethnicities may also have the characteristics of "black." Similarly, people who are "white" may be from spain, norway, belarus, etc., all with a high amount of variation between groups.

Ergo, classifying people on the basis of skin color or other external traits is purely subjective, and without any scientific basis.

No, I'm not. Ethnicity is something else entirely. I'm talking about race -- the genetic differentiation of populations with different regional ancestries. I've posted the links already -- you're free to peruse them. Since you are refusing to accept the legitimate source that you asked for, I'll quote:

"All of Earth's people, according to a new analysis of the genomes of 53 populations, fall into just three genetic groups. They are the products of the first and most important journey our species made -- the walk out of Africa about 70,000 years ago by a small fraction of ancestral Homo sapiens. One group is the African. It contains the descendants of the original humans who emerged in East Africa about 200,000 years ago. The second is the Eurasian, encompassing the natives of Europe, the Middle East and Southwest Asia (east to about Pakistan). The third is the East Asian, the inhabitants of Asia, Japan and Southeast Asia, and -- thanks to the Bering Land Bridge and island-hopping in the South Pacific -- of the Americas and Oceania as well."

That is race, not ethnicity. The other link I posted shows how genetic nuance can be found within these populations. I'll provide another quote.

"The genetic map of Europe bears a clear structural similarity to the geographic map. The major genetic differences are between populations of the north and south (the vertical axis of the map shows north-south differences, the horizontal axis those of east-west). The area assigned to each population reflects the amount of genetic variation in it."

Now, if you choose to use poor racial constructs (ie: White, Black, Asian), then sure: you leave yourself susceptible to uneven results. But if you understand that there are three major subgroups (Eurasian, African, East Asian), and that each subgroup can be broken into smaller "races", then there is clearly a genetic basis for race. A black person from Africa is likely part of a different, identifiable genetic pool than a white person from Germany. An Italian, even, is likely part of a different, identifiable genetic pool than a white person from Finland. Whether or not you choose to identify "Italian" as a race is subjective and, basically, irrelevant. The fact is that, by any accepted definition of race, Italians (as a whole) would be genetically separate from Finns.

There are many genetic bases for race. The fact is that much of the world is lazy with their racial descriptions. White is not a race, we agree. But that doesn't mean that there are no races. Your problem seems to be with lazy racial categorization.

[Truth]

you know who else was for censorship (ie book burnings)?

ARUDEN = HITLER