[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Elipsis)
Because people with blue eyes and people with brown eyes don't generally have different cultures and beliefs.

I'm asking this question in reference to the ceremony; everyone seems to be complaining about the depiction of 'black' people but don't pay any attention to whether or not other physical traits were proportionally represented. Why do only certain things matter?

And that's before we get into genetics. I don't give a crap if you deny it with your academic papers, which are the equivalent of me posting up the bell curve.

The difference is the fact that the bell curve has been refuted on several occasions, used an invalid premise and has multiple problems with its philosophical epistemology.

This area of study is pretty much null and void because if a scientist actually did discover that fundamentally blacks have a cluster of genes that make them less intelligent and he puts it in a peer reviewed paper, people like you will make sure he never gets an academic position ever again and that he will be excluded from the scientific community in general.

The existence of intelligent 'black' people and unintelligent East Asians/Ashkenazi Jews/whatever directly invalidates the notion that intelligence is something genomic that is delineated by 'race'. Try again.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
I'm asking this question in reference to the ceremony; everyone seems to be complaining about the depiction of 'black' people but don't pay any attention to whether or not other physical traits were proportionally represented. Why do only certain things matter?

The difference is the fact that the bell curve has been refuted on several occasions, used an invalid premise and has multiple problems with its philosophical epistemology.

The existence of intelligent 'black' people and unintelligent East Asians/Ashkenazi Jews/whatever directly invalidates the notion that intelligence is something genomic that is delineated by 'race'. Try again.

Well they are complaining about those things because they are most obvious. Maybe we could have got into a hair colour debate if 3/4 of the people involved in the ceremony didn't automatically have brown hair and brown eyes any way?

Like I said, the bell curve may well have been refuted (in your eyes), but it's not an area of science in which people want to sign up to be on the opposing side to yours. It doesn't exactly make you friends when you discover things people don't want to hear.

Variation within races does not prove that races do not exist. How in your mind does that logic follow? We are talking about groups of people clustered together by an external trait that is largely defined by their geographical location (or their ancestors). We differ in so many ways based on this so-called made up 'race', from predispositions to diseases to strength etc. it is quite hard to deny. And I can only come to the conclusion that those who say that it doesn't exist, and use that as their arguing point, aren't worth listening to because they have a blatant agenda that is essentially an inverted storm front member. I am interested in the truth rather than forwarding my own ingrained beliefs.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Elipsis)
Well they are complaining about those things because they are most obvious. Maybe we could have got into a hair colour debate if 3/4 of the people involved in the ceremony didn't automatically have brown hair and brown eyes any way?

So the logical premise isn't that X isn't representative and it is therefore problematic, but that X is noticeable and isn't representative and is therefore problematic? Quite bizarre.

Like I said, the bell curve may well have been refuted (in your eyes), but it's not an area of science in which people want to sign up to be on the opposing side to yours. It doesn't exactly make you friends when you discover things people don't want to hear.

Creationism and the 6000-year-old Earth theories are true but the atheist agenda in academia is preventing anybody coming through with evidence.

Variation within races does not prove that races do not exist. How in your mind does that logic follow? We are talking about groups of people clustered together by an external trait that is largely defined by their geographical location (or their ancestors). We differ in so many ways based on this so-called made up 'race', from predispositions to diseases to strength etc. it is quite hard to deny. And I can only come to the conclusion that those who say that it doesn't exist, and use that as their arguing point, aren't worth listening to because they have a blatant agenda that is essentially an inverted storm front member. I am interested in the truth rather than forwarding my own ingrained beliefs.

"No one denies that human populations differ in allele frequencies. The problem is that Dobzhansky seems to label any genetic differences racial differences while at the same time claiming that not every racially distinct population is a race or should be recognized as such. He wrote, for example, in response to Frank Livingstone's ([1962] 2008a) rejection of the application of the concept of geographic race to humans that: "Since human populations [. . .] often, differ in the frequencies of one or more, usually several to many, genetic variables, they are by this test racially distinct. But it does not follow that any racially distinct populations should be given racial (or subspecific) labels" (Dobzhansky 2008b, p. 298).

The difficulties in Dobzhansky's thought about the existence of biological human races were highlighted by Livingstone in his reply, in which he rejected as simply untenable "Dobzhansky's dichotomy" between the issue of the putative biological reality of human races and the allegedly unconnected issue of the nomenclatorial recognition of such biological human races. Livingstone argued that: "the concepts of a science are also logically interconnected and form a coherent, consistent theory or system. The concepts of such a system are defined in terms of one another and certain primitive terms, and then the formal, mathematical, or logical properties of the system derived (2008b, p. 300). Livingstone's point was that if the concept of race is being introduced in human population genetics because it allegedly has a scientific necessity and a unique explanatory value, then the nomenclatorial identification of human races cannot be at the same time a matter of arbitrary choice." (Maglo, 2011)

You want to talk about logic? Okay. If the logical premise is "difference in the frequency of various traits = new race", and all of us as individuals differ in the frequency of various traits, why are we not all our own 'race'?

[Mister Dead]

(Original post by Elipsis)
I consider being British to be considering yourself to be British. All it takes is for a person to say it and genuinely mean it. It doesn't matter if they speak broken English and wear a turban, I would consider them British. This whole "there is no such thing as Britishness" thing is really ridiculous. There are, or were, many things that made us a very homogenous island, even if there were also many things that make us different. Tea is just one example. We choose our cultural identity, and what defines us. There is clearly a difference between those Pakistan born people on this island who consider themselves Pakistani, to those Pakistani born people who consider themselves to be British.

Conciousness is also a tricky thing to define adequately, does that mean you don't possess it?

nice try, but you're making this up as you go along and frankly it's twaddle

[TRS-T]

Multiracialism and uniculturalism is the way forward.

Just like Brazil.

[sugar-n-spice]

(Original post by whyumadtho)




"No one denies that human populations differ in allele frequencies. The *problem is that Dobzhansky seems to label any genetic differences racial *differences while at the same time claiming that not every racially *distinct population is a race or should be recognized as such. He wrote, *for example, in response to Frank Livingstone's ([1962] 2008a) *rejection of the application of the concept of geographic race to humans *that: "Since human populations [. . .] often, differ in the frequencies *of one or more, usually several to many, genetic variables, they are by *this test racially distinct. But it does not follow that any racially *distinct populations should be given racial (or subspecific) labels" *(Dobzhansky 2008b, p. 298).

I'm in a playful mood, so playful I'm on TSR


Japan Haiti

There is no single characteristic which can distinguish a Japanese person from a Haitian probably not even a combination, but is there the possibility that within the national borders of these two nations the populations have different frequencies of allele variations which cause variations in IQ?

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by sugar-n-spice)
I'm in a playful mood, so playful I'm on TSR


Japan Haiti

There is no single characteristic which can distinguish a Japanese person from a Haitian probably not even a combination, but is there the possibility that within the national borders of these two nations the populations have different frequencies of allele variations which cause variations in IQ?

The distribution would be individualised, which is why not everybody in those respective countries has a particular level of intelligence. There will be very intelligent and very unintelligent people in both countries.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
So the logical premise isn't that X isn't representative and it is therefore problematic, but that X is noticeable and isn't representative and is therefore problematic? Quite bizarre.

Creationism and the 6000-year-old Earth theories are true but the atheist agenda in academia is preventing anybody coming through with evidence.



"No one denies that human populations differ in allele frequencies. The problem is that Dobzhansky seems to label any genetic differences racial differences while at the same time claiming that not every racially distinct population is a race or should be recognized as such. He wrote, for example, in response to Frank Livingstone's ([1962] 2008a) rejection of the application of the concept of geographic race to humans that: "Since human populations [. . .] often, differ in the frequencies of one or more, usually several to many, genetic variables, they are by this test racially distinct. But it does not follow that any racially distinct populations should be given racial (or subspecific) labels" (Dobzhansky 2008b, p. 298).

The difficulties in Dobzhansky's thought about the existence of biological human races were highlighted by Livingstone in his reply, in which he rejected as simply untenable "Dobzhansky's dichotomy" between the issue of the putative biological reality of human races and the allegedly unconnected issue of the nomenclatorial recognition of such biological human races. Livingstone argued that: "the concepts of a science are also logically interconnected and form a coherent, consistent theory or system. The concepts of such a system are defined in terms of one another and certain primitive terms, and then the formal, mathematical, or logical properties of the system derived (2008b, p. 300). Livingstone's point was that if the concept of race is being introduced in human population genetics because it allegedly has a scientific necessity and a unique explanatory value, then the nomenclatorial identification of human races cannot be at the same time a matter of arbitrary choice." (Maglo, 2011)

You want to talk about logic? Okay. If the logical premise is "difference in the frequency of various traits = new race", and all of us as individuals differ in the frequency of various traits, why are we not all our own 'race'?

So, essentially you are using the fluidity of race as a concept to try and prove that race is just a construct. Add to that there is no 'true' pure white person, and you must really think you are on to something. But what we're talking about is grouping together large groups of people, and comparing them on average to other large groups of people. That's the only way to find clusters of genes, and reflections of those genes on external traits - of which skin colour is only one. If I got 10,000 'white' people and 10,000 'Japanese' people, and cross bred them then continued to breed their children in isolation, I would have created a new race. Just because there is blurring and overlap does not mean that race in and of itself does not exist, because it certain does.

There's overlap between gender but that doesn't mean gender doesn't exist. Are you one of those people who denies that men have bigger muscles and greater spacial awareness too? Do you also think that there are no differences between a collie and a whippet apart from hairyness and build? There are after all many people who own collies bred with whippets, and there is probably a little collie in the whippet gene pool too. But they are still two distinct breeds of dogs, one runs really fast and the other is really obedient and clever.

Please do tell me if there is any point in me continuing with this debate, because i'd rather go and watch the olympics if nothing I could say will change your mind.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
The distribution would be individualised, which is why not everybody in those respective countries has a particular level of intelligence. There will be very intelligent and very unintelligent people in both countries.

Yes, but the spread of those individuals across the spectrum of intelligence would be different between the two countries. One country could have many more mentally retarded people whilst the other has many more geniuses. The fact that distribution is individualised only means that it is wrong to discriminate based on race, because anyone has the potential to be anything, just certain races have greater or lesser potential to be certain things.

[sugar-n-spice]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
The distribution would be individualised, which is why not everybody in those respective countries has a particular level of intelligence. There will be very intelligent and very unintelligent people in both countries.

I know, but that isn't the question. A tiny amount of members of each national group will have all the lower IQ variations, a tiny all the higher, most have a combination putting their IQ near the national average. Is there a chance that the two national populations will have largely different concentrations of the allele variations?

[YMLT]

Its always been a wonderful thing. Long may it continue.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by Mister Dead)
nice try, but you're making this up as you go along and frankly it's twaddle

[Elipsis]

(Original post by sugar-n-spice)
I know, but that isn't the question. A tiny amount of members of each national group will have all the lower IQ variations, a tiny all the higher, most have a combination putting their IQ near the national average. Is there a chance that the two national populations will have largely different concentrations of the allele variations?

Thank you. It is always good to see someone else argue what you are arguing logically, rather than from a ridiculous racist point of view. It restores my faith in my sanity. With most people who debate on 'our' side it's a case of yes you are right, you don't know why, you are just a ****.

[sugar-n-spice]

(Original post by Elipsis)
Yes, but the spread of those individuals across the spectrum of intelligence would be different between the two countries. One country could have many more mentally retarded people whilst the other has many more geniuses. The fact that distribution is individualised only means that it is wrong to discriminate based on race, because anyone has the potential to be anything, just certain races have greater or lesser potential to be certain things.

You can't say that. The inherited x or y chromosome from the father provides a single and discreet way of separating a man from a woman.

[Raiden10]

(Original post by PythianLegume)
Your post contradicts itself almost. How can multiculturalism have succeeded if the BNP and EDL exist?

(1) Nobody takes the BNP seriously

(2) What the fark is the EDL?

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Inzamam99)
Just out of interest, a friend of mine was born here and so were her parents, grandparents and great grandparents. She is an "ethnic minority" and yet proudly British- much more so than your actual native. Out of interest, what makes her less British than your average "native"?

I guess there is the lack of a historical link which creates a shared sense of identity through having a family that lived through the war in Britain et al.. Other than that, a passport is a passport. It just depends on an individuals definition of British, but using purely legal means is a bit narrow in my opinion..

[sugar-n-spice]

(Original post by Elipsis)
Thank you. It is always good to see someone else argue what you are arguing logically, rather than from a ridiculous racist point of view. It restores my faith in my sanity. With most people who debate on 'our' side it's a case of yes you are right, you don't know why, you are just a ****.

Thank you

Racism has no genetic logical basis, but too many people are trying to have their cake and eat it.

[sugar-n-spice]

(Original post by Raiden10)
(1) Nobody takes the BNP seriously

(2) What the fark is the EDL?

EDL= A mixture of anti-Islam and racist but using anti-Islam because it's more acceptable than out-an-out racism to be racist, street protest movement.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Elipsis)
So, essentially you are using the fluidity of race as a concept to try and prove that race is just a construct. Add to that there is no 'true' pure white person, and you must really think you are on to something. But what we're talking about is grouping together large groups of people, and comparing them on average to other large groups of people. That's the only way to find clusters of genes, and reflections of those genes on external traits - of which skin colour is only one. If I got 10,000 'white' people and 10,000 'Japanese' people, and cross bred them then continued to breed their children in isolation, I would have created a new race. Just because there is blurring and overlap does not mean that race in and of itself does not exist, because it certain does.

Then respond to the logical question. Why are we not all our own 'race'? If we're going to arbitrarily group individuals "just because", how can you still claim the group is anything but a social construct?

There's overlap between gender but that doesn't mean gender doesn't exist.

Gender is a social construct and is equivalent to culture.

Are you one of those people who denies that men have bigger muscles and greater spacial awareness too?

"Men" don't, some men do and some woman do, depending on their individual genotype and phenotype.

Do you also think that there are no differences between a collie and a whippet apart from hairyness and build?

I get this straw man in every discussion I have on this topic. There is biological variation, but it is non-concordant and overlapping. If the logical premise is "difference = new race", we are all our own 'race'.

You may choose particular traits to serve as the definitive features but that creates another problem: why is there not a "brown-haired race" and a "non-brown haired race"? Why have you chosen hair colour in the first place? The only means of this being objective is by saying

• there is so much overlap and lack of concordance amongst various traits, it is impossible to separate them into any objective system at all; (nothing) or
• every organism is its own 'race' because every individual organism has different genetic traits (stochastic mutation and different parents ensures this) (all).

Anything between is arbitrary and socially constructed.

There are after all many people who own collies bred with whippets, and there is probably a little collie in the whippet gene pool too. But they are still two distinct breeds of dogs, one runs really fast and the other is really obedient and clever.

You've arbitrarily chosen a few traits that may or may not be present in all the organisms under consideration. In what way is the proof of this 'distinction' not tautological?

Please do tell me if there is any point in me continuing with this debate, because i'd rather go and watch the olympics if nothing I could say will change your mind.

You speak as if I am not stating a logical fact. You cannot dispute what I'm saying because I am clearly correct.

[G56]

(Original post by PythianLegume)
Your post contradicts itself almost. How can multiculturalism have succeeded if the BNP and EDL exist?

That's a stupid extrapolation of reality.