Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Racial extinction watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I maintain that Iago is a far superior debater. Vienna has just been around for longer and is much more prevalent.
    Well I dunno. The one time I actually sparred with her in a thread she annihilated me and I apologised. She has a certain fire to her. But thanks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnny)
    Vienna has just been around for longer and is much more prevalent.
    Yes, and dominant even
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iago)
    No, I tire of this form of debate. I will not defend every individual sentence I wrote, on its own, taken out of the context of my overall argument. Go back and tackle my post as a whole, if you have something to say about it.
    We would all do well to follow this advice.

    I agree with you on the whole. The problem I have with the OP is that you see culture as being as distinct as race. In my opinion culture is totally external, it is subject to evolution of social trends, but it is entirely unrelated to race. I think it would be possble for any number of obscure tribes to have been of an entirely different race, but geographical and evolutionary coincidence made it so.

    The idea of a culture being 'lost' is little more than romanticism to me. If people valued any 'lost' culture, in a truly democratic world they would have the oppurtunity to adopt that cultural style and values and live within that kind of society. Race has nothing to do with, so 'preserving racial purity' is an irrelevant concept in terms of preserving cultures.

    Obviously realistically it's not possible for a group of people to just set up their own society and culture to suit their needs. And why is this? Because we live in a world where the dominant elite culture and political system enforces their values on the rest of the population with ruthless imperialism, with no regard for other culture or values. This is why I see it as so ironic when people preach about the preservation of western values and culture.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ok Iago, here's a spoiler for you, I may at some point break down some of the below post.

    I am really not trying to pick on you, but if it makes you feel better feel free to neg rep me again for doing it, as I told you before I really don't mind and I was genuinely amused at the way you effectively neg repped me for your poor post.

    I promise there are no hard feelings when you do it. I may be curt, or blunt on a messageboard, but it is just a messageboard and I'm really not going to invest any really strong emotions into an exchange of views, or certainly none that I am going to take away from here.

    I will neither walk away from a thread feeling elated at having "crushed" someone, or hurt that someone neg repped me, or failed to understand what I had to say.

    Life's to short to be that hyper sensative.

    Anyway, before we move on, let us travel backwards, to your earlier posts. Starting with the one that I ripped to pieces so easily.

    I have already explained to you why it was so broken down, and hopefully here I will help you understand further why it was actually such a poor post.

    The first point to start with is a point you repeated time and time again in your original response to me.

    (Original post by Iago)
    Why do you choose to see humans in terms of vague, anthropological groupings?
    (Original post by Iago)
    that anthropological group doesn't exist anymore.
    (Original post by Iago)
    talk of vague anthropological groups.
    (Original post by Iago)
    people used to talk of different anthropological groups of humans being different races. And they were scientifically incorrect then, as they are now.
    I'm going to take a wild guess here Iago and suggest you are an active anti-racist. Let's be clear on what that is, I am not suggesting you are not racist, I am suggesting that you are anti-racist, the two are different things, it is possible to be one, without being the other.

    Now I might be wrong on that guess, but there is reasononing behind my guess, and that is because of the argument you parroted.

    On a seperate thread right now, I have been pulling the wings off the BNP, I know, it's cruel, it's like being a bully, it's a soft target that anyone can pick to pieces, but during the argument someone linked me into a site called ***************, and on that site is a large forum, full of racists, nazis, members of the BNP, the KKK, and any other neo-nazi right wing organisation you can think of.

    Also on that site is an oppossing views forum, and on that forum I see many of your arguments repeated time and time again, parroted in much the way you parroted them, and the reason for this?

    Because it's an anti-racist argument, a PC argument, constructed to defend a political ideology, rather than a factual argument.

    Your whole "race doesn't exist" argument (to over simplify it, in order to give it a label) is really no different from the extreme right wings "every muslim is a suicide bomber" argument (again over simplified, to give it a label).

    The basis of the argument is simple, I even touched upon it myself, when I said to Amon. "the white race is a bit of a fuzzy term, I don't know if anyone has actually nailed a defenition of it yet".

    Racial anthropology is not the most exact and respected science out there, and due to mans nomadic instincts there are some grey areas that abound in racial matters, and it is this fact that the anti-racists jump on to create this false argument that you put forward.

    However there are also grey areas between a diamond and a piece of coal, but you would both look, and feel stupid, if I gave you both and you ended up throwing the diamond on the fire, and handed the lump of coal to your girlfriend as you asked her to marry you, wouldn't you?

    Just because we can't determine the exact moment that a piece of coal ceases to be a piece of coal, or that a diamond becomes a diamond, does not mean that diamonds or coal do not exist, or are in some way vague commodities.

    This is the main area where your argument falls to pieces, it requires that I specify a race, and then you try to find grey areas around that race, or anomalies, and try to argue these things, in an attempt to prove there is no race.

    You are presenting us with the "nearly" diamond, and saying "see, there is no such thing as diamonds?".

    The need for the fall guy was made evident in your post, for example when you state

    (Original post by Iago)
    If members of 'the white race
    thereby bringing in a distinct race, so you would later be able to argue the grey areas, and anomalies, to try to say "see, there is no such thing as diamonds?".

    However you know as well as I do that there are "diamonds" which is evident through out your posts.

    (Original post by Iago)
    Most of what we value in individuals...we're talking mainly 'mental' characterists here...vary more within races than between races.
    (Original post by Iago)
    Now dot he same for another race and you'll get another bell curve.
    (Original post by Iago)
    there is way more variation within racial groups than there is between them.
    (Original post by Iago)
    I would suspect it would have something to do with the different history of different races.
    And so on and so forth, these "vague anthropological groups" are really not that vague at all, are they, which is why you refer to them repeatedly yourself, it's also why science and medicine refers to them.

    I mentioned earlier that even in something as trivial as fingerprints that race can be seen, something that exists even after the person has left the room.

    Much of the material left behind when people touch anything is fat molecules, or lipids.

    One of these lipids, called squalene, is heavily present in fingerprints.

    In recent studies, using hair to identify race and gender, it was discovered that human hair is coated with a mixture of many components, most of which are secreted from the sebaceous gland at the hair root, including fatty acids, fatty alcohols and other lipids such as cholesterol and squalene.

    In this research, the hair from an Asian male was compared with that of a Caucasian male. In both cases, fatty acids were found (as their methyl esters) but in different amounts. These differences were emphasized by comparing ratios of the signals for particular fatty acids. One major difference involved the hydrocarbon squalene. It was present as a large signal for the Asian hair but was totally absent from Caucasian hair.

    Following these findings comparisons were made between other types of hair which further highlighted differences, allowing profiles to be built up, based on race, gender and age.

    Knowing that levels of squalene excretion vary from race to race, and from gender to gender, it now allows us to take fingerprints, from the scene of a crime, and build up a database, that would allow us to see the colour and gender of the purportrator, even if we did not have his identity.

    You see?

    Race is very much evident, in science, in medicine, in every facet of life, we can see it, touch it, smell it (no insult, it's a fact), we can observe it in behaviour, and in many other things.

    It's real.

    Just because there are grey areas on the edges does not change that fact.

    (Original post by Iago)
    Most of what we value in individuals...we're talking mainly 'mental' characterists here...vary more within races than between races.
    I strongly disagree with that.

    Most of what makes up an individual is affected by their inheritance, and their enviroment, nature, and nurture.

    Both of these things are affected by race.

    It's a bell curve thing. Imagine, say, you had a graph plotted showing the intellegence of each member of a racial group. I dunno how we'd measure intellegence or define the group but let's pretend we have done both.
    Now that amused me, because you anti-racists deny the ability to be able to measure intelligence of racial groups, yet so often you, and your racist counterparts, have to fall back on the argument of racial intelligence, which forces you to have this almost apologetic "cough" before you begin on such a route.

    The graph is gonna look like a bell - it curves up slowly, then curves up fast, then curves down slowly, then curves down fast. To put it simply: there are a few people on each extreme, and most are somewhere in the middle two quadrants.
    Indeed.

    Now dot he same for another race and you'll get another bell curve. Place the two curves on the same graph. Now there might be a difference...one might be every so slightly the right of the other...showing that there is a very very general difference betwene the two races.
    Actually, through fear of starting another debate, I should point out here that in fact evidence tells us it is not a "very very general" difference but a significantly marked difference.

    Not that that is relevent to much in life, but it is better to stick with the facts.

    btw. I heard that apologetic "cough" again.

    But when you take the people the graph is describing as individuals, it remains the case that most people remain somewhere in the middle of the two bell curves, and that most - and I mean 'most' with a vengeance - people on either bell curve will find plenty of people on the other bell curve to their left and right on the graph.
    Indeed that is the case in most situations (however obviously not all) but it also goes to prove nothing.

    You are saying that many people of race x are of similar intelligence to people of race y, even though race x or y maybe on average more intelligent than the other, and therefore what?

    My intelligence is not something that is a significant part of my make up, nor if it is the same as someone else does it make me the same, or a different, race to them, it merely shows that we have a similar level of intelligence.

    It is perfectly possible that a five foot tall, white, lesbian, ballet dancer named Gewndaline has the same IQ as a six foot tall, black, hetrosexual Bricklayer named Barry, it has no bearing on the fact that they are individual, or the myraid of differences between them.

    Put basically, there is way more variation within the curves than between the curves...there is way more variation within racial groups than there is between them.
    Just because many people of race x might have similar intelligence levels to people of race y, and that some people of race y might have different intelligence levels to people of race y, does not alter the fact that there are disctinct races, and disctinct differences between people of those races.

    Still you search for the grey areas, to deny the obvious and the real, the quantified, and the scientific.

    What is more in this particular case the PC garbage you are spewing is also wrong.

    In intelligence alone there are up to 30 or 40 points, if I recall correctly, between the most intelligent and least intelligent races, in numerous studies, and therefore the over lap is not as strong as you suggest, it is also a fact that mental attributes are far more varied than mere intelligence.

    Some one of limited intelligence, for example, might have a quite brilliant musical mind, or be of an artistic bent.

    Also we have negative mental attributes, related to mental characteristics, for example something like selective mutism, a psychological anxiety disorder, which appears to varying degrees in various races.

    When we move away from our simple intelligence test and start applying our examination to all aspects of life we begin to see more and more variation.

    In some areas one bell curve is going to be almost overlaid on another, where as in a different area our bell curve will barely overlap, when we put them all together we discover that there are very significant mental variations between the races.

    But even this is not that significant, because the variations, or lack of variations are being twisted out of proportion by your anti-racist rehtoric to begin with.

    You argue that there is only limited variation between the races, but I say so what?

    The fact is that there is only a few % variation between you and a monkey, but you're not a monkey are you?

    There is very little variation between you and some plants, but you are not a plant either are you?

    One can clarify the situation by comparing race (a division of one section of the animal kingdom) to color of light (a division of one section of the electromagnetic spectrum).

    The concept of color of light really only applies to the visible portion of the EM spectrum, just as the concept of race applies only to the human section of the animal "spectrum". Since the similarities between red and orange light, say, is greater than the differences between them, then someone would use the tools in his rhetorical toolbox to claim that color does not exist. He would say, "There is one kind of light, visible light. Color is a false social construct."

    Race, in humans, corresponds to breed in other animals. If we trace the logic, and map that logic onto the other animals, then "breed" does not exist either. You would have to say, "There is only one kind of dog, the canine dog."

    Therefore it doesn't matter that the similarities between red and orange light, say, is greater than the differences between them, or that the similarities between race x and race y is greater than the differences, the entire argument is a false construct.

    We gain our identity, and give identity to others, on the basis of mental traits primarily. Therefore we simply do not gain our identities, for the most part, from anything connected to our racial group.
    I disagree with that statement strongly, and you bring up the point why it is wrong in your next quote.

    Maybe culture, family, and all these things come into the picture more.
    Yes, culture, family, inheritance, and enviroment all play a strong part, they don't just come into the picture, a combination of nature and nurture are perhaps the two most important factors in the shaping of our character.

    Let us look at them.

    What is culture?

    From the disctionary:

    " cul·ture (kŭl'chər)
    n.
    The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought."


    Culture is a product of the people, and the people that most influence us, and the people that define culture, are predominantly of the same race as us.

    What is family?

    They are a genetically connected social grouping, therefore, in the majority of cases the same race as us, and even in the minority of cases, where we have a mixed race family they are still racially connected.

    We inherit from our family, so I think that is clearly covered by the above examination, and for the majority of people their enviroment overlaps with the culture they experiance, so again there are racial factors.

    Therefore race plays a significant factor in who and what we are.

    Well I'm no expert in the area, but I really don't see how race itself can have been a factor.
    This is a very interesting comment, considering your next comment.

    I would suspect it would have something to do with the different history of different races...
    It has nothing to do with race, but it might have something to do with the history of a race?

    Isn't that relevent to race?

    the differing cultures, lifestyles, social arrangements...
    Which are all race related.

    Remember culture?

    " cul·ture (kŭl'chər)
    n.
    The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought."


    Culture is a product of the people, and the people that most influence us, and the people that define culture, are predominantly of the same race as us.

    Even more so the further we go back in time, and seeing as you are discussing the history of music here, you are going back in time, are you not?

    These musical styles first began to develop seperately at a time when the races had almost non-existant interaction, to there cultures were predominantly monoracial and monocultural.

    In other words, again, it is race related.

    All of these things are attatched to race...in that these people migrated elsewhere, and so over time developed into a seperate anthropological group, and developed a different culture to go with a different lifestyle, and in turn developed a different sort of music.
    And here you kind of end up having come almost full circle, and end up biting yourself in the ass.

    All of these things are attatched to race
    That would be those "vague anthropological groupings" that don't exist would it?

    and developed a different culture to go with a different lifestyle, and in turn developed a different sort of music.
    And this is the value of race.

    The unique collective development of a race, or ethnic grouping leads to a unique culture, that provides new and wonderous things that can not be produced by a different, unrelated culture.

    Yes, we are individuals, I know that, I understand that, and I value that, but we are also collections of individuals, which is equally of value.

    Races exist because we have evolved into them, and that evolution has brought us beautiful, valuable and diverse cultures, that enrich the planet.

    Which brings me back to my original post, and my original questions, should we take steps to preserve cultures and racial stocks, from such extinctions as above, or is the loss of such people and cultures not deemed significant?

    We seem to live in a world where we might seek to protect a breed of Tiger, or Elephant, or Bear, protecting it's enviroment, to save it from extinction, should humans to be treated differently?

    Should we destroy cultural diversity, and all the wonderful things you enjoy, and take for granted on a daily basis?

    Is race really such a bad thing?

    You see the trouble is, in your head long rush to push an falsely constructed, anti-racist argument against me, despite the fact that my original argument shows that I am not racist, by the fact I mourn the loss of two different races, or ethnic groupings, and seek to preserve all other racial groupings, you lose sight of the facts.

    The fact is that we are both the individual, and a member of the collective, both are important to not only ourselves, but to everyone else as well.

    Imagine, to use the example of music, being used above, if only one race had ever existed.

    What would music be like today?

    Would you prefer that?

    I think it's time to jetison the PC crap, and start recognising that race exists, that the differences between the races are something to treasure, and something to preserve.

    I would hate to see a race become extinct, and just because you can't see beyond yourself as an individual, or because your thinking is warped by some anti-racist false constructs, that are as warped and politically motivated as the extremist racist, I don't see that as a reason for any racial group to end up as merely a collection of artifacts in a dusty box somewhere, rather than as a living, breathing, group of individuals, who through their collective existance contribute to the beauty and value of this world.

    Feel free to neg rep me again.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    OK...thankyou for finally engaging in debate. No hard feelings here either, I'm glad you've acceeded to my request (and it was just a request, this isn't about posturing or winning or losing). I can see your argument now...I couldn't before in your previous style. Maybe you can still see arguments using that style, but I can't keep track of debate that way. That's just a fact about me, it can't be helped.

    I wan't to engage with your first point of contention before we move on, because there's a lot to get through - don't worry, I'm not ignoring all the other stuff...I'm just putting it to one side for now.

    OK - you're distinction between anti-racism and not being a racist with regard to me:

    I see the distinction you're making, in that there is a different between the general idea of not being a racist and the distinct claim that there are no genuine racial differences to some extent or another.

    All I can say here is that you've misconstrued my basic original premise, which is why i'm tackling this first. I'm not denying the existence of racial groups as such...as you rightfully pointed out, I use them to make a lot of the points in my arguments. I agree that any flat out denial of racial difference is silly - like you said earlier in one of your posts, put someone in a room with a Caucasian, a Negro, and an Indian etc., and they'll soon work out that there's something going on here, so to speak. It's not rocket science, nor rocket anthropology.

    But at no point during my posts (I apologise if I expressed myself poorly) did I make anything close to a statement to the effect of denying racial differences. What I have been saying with regard to racial differences are the following things, to name a few:

    1) Racial differences are rooted in the the notion of anthropological groups. As you've said yourself, this 'science' (it is on the bounderies of science) is not exact, and is more of a vague model for charting an aspect of human development than anything else. So yes, there are racial groups, in a sense...but they are not the clearly defined groups your argument seems to rest upon. They are instead vague groupings - hence my constant use of terms like 'vague anthropological groups'. You seem to agree with me here on face value, where we disagree is where you read to much into what you think me to be implying by using this term. I'm not dismissing anthropology, I'm just being clear about what it is - what it is like as a subject.

    2) Racial differences are very different to differences in species, in terms of importance, the difference it makes, the fluidity of the groupings, and the vagueness of what defines the groupings. This is reflected by the way in which one distinction belongs primarily to a hard science, and the other to a quasi-science.

    3) In fact, the very differences you accuse me of denying are actually the basis for much of my argument and many of my value judgements here. As someone above rightfully pointed out, you are committing the fallacy of conflating race with all of the things that merely co-incide with it: culture, nationhood, lifestyles, values etc. but most importantly identity. The nature of racial differences is that they are almost purely physical - these vague anthropological groups (I will continue to use the term, because it is appropriate) are divided along things like general body shape, tendencies towards certain hair and eye colours etc. etc. You get the picture. Relatively minor physical variations at that, in comparison to the uniting physical features that all humans share by virtue of being human. Race is the icing on the cake of the physical makeup of a human being, so to speak. This is what I am contending

    4) From these premises I proceed to make very different value judgements to you, which is where the majority of our heated disagreement seems to stem from. In a nutshell, I am not contending that race not exist, I am contending that it doesn't matter all that much. This puts me squarely in the camp of 'non-racist' rather than 'anti-racist', according to your own distinction...although to be honest I'm just expressing how I personally see things, rather than towing any ideological line. I never read my e-mails, so the elite underwater-volcano PC conspiracy team will find themselves frustrated in their attempts to give me my orders. I'll break it down further with some examples:

    - A lot of what we're debating about has to do with identity, as we've both recognised. Because genuine racial differences account for so little in what we naturally value in other human beings and in ourselves (though they do exist!) I am contending that personal identity is not, for the most part, derived from race. We ought value humans as individuals, and in doing so we must render race relatively irrelevant (I'm a poet). You continually assert that traits etc. are inhereted, and while that is sort of true (we are influenced much more by the enviroment than you think...even when it comes to shaping how our inhereted 'traits' actually turn out to manifest themselves...we inherit general dispositions rather than traits) this isn't impacted on by race. At least not where it matters - which is areas such as personality etc. - the realm of the mental - and more external, social stuff, like culture/lifestyle etc. Race does impact on our physical features, obviously...but these do not take priority in our concept of the individual. Our language reflects this - a distinction between one's self and one's body pervades it. So I am contending we ought not deal with people, on a moral or conceptual level, racially. It is an irrational corruption of our concept of an individual person - it degrades the individual, denies them their status as an individual. Racists make the mistake of attatching things that do matter to race - such as personality traits/cultural trends etc. This is not an accurate genetic/anthropological picture, it is a fallacy.

    - Back to my bell curve thing. You criticise it because I am using the very same groups I am denying the existence of, but now that I have made it quite clear that I am not denying their existence, that argument falls. You also seem to not believe that it is true, and that there if we were to plot such graphs, the distance between the bell curves would be large enough in many areas so as to make racial differences matter in our concept of individual people. On this all I can say is that you are simply wrong, and that a cursory examination of the world around you, let alone a scientific study, will show you to be so. Since I am agreeing with an absoloute mainstream scientific consensus on this matter, the burden is on you to present us with good studies that show the opposite. I beg you not to show my a study which points to a slight difference in the bell curves...to be honest what is needed is a study that does not have most people from both curves falling in the middle two quadrants. I challange you to find a decent one.

    - Natural anthropological changes (and they are natural - disease, war, famine etc....all these things are natural, contrary to one of your previous contentions), including cases of anthropological groups dying out or being replaced or being diluted/merged with others, are not, and cannot, be in themselves bad or immoral events. Because we value humans as individuals, and because their individuality is derived nearly entirely from things external to their race, we must respect the choices that humans make. So either a) an anthropological group 'dies out' (nothing is really dying, its a metaphor) because its members freely procreate with members of another group or b) an anthropological group dies out because of various factors such as war, famine, disease etc. In the first case nothing at all immoral is happening - people are making free willed choices that are theirs to make. In the second case immoral things are happening...or at least terrible things are happening. But the 'death of the race' is not in itself a bad event on top of the events like murder and rape etc. The 'death of the race' is morally neutral, what's bad is the events that have led to it, and they are bad by virtue of having unrelated characteristics (i.e. there is suffering involved or whatever). And so shifts in anthropological groupings (of which there will inevitabvly be many more, I assure you) are not bad things in themselves, and this includes the case you started this debate with. Maybe the shift involved bad things - but that is different.

    - Another mistake you are making, tied to the above points, is that you are importing the moral atmosphere of the death of an individual into the situation in which an anthropological group 'dies'. As I said above, the word 'dies' here is metaphorical...only individuals have been dying...nothing else on top of that. Anthropological groups are not living creatures, and cannot be killed. But you are treating it as if I am advocating or tolerating the murder of people, or something like that. I am not. As I said before, these people lived as individuals, and died, just as we will. The fact that their anthropological group did not last long after their death and that ours might does not impact on the value or status of our respective individual lives. People live, people die. How they live and how they die is whats important, not what happens to - I'll say it again - a vague anthropological grouping of which they were a member.

    I think I've gone on for long enough here, though if you want clarification on any of the above points please mention it in your response. Hopefully you'll now see exactly how we differ at the basis of our arguments...and hopefully you'll recognise the nature of my position. I am what you would term a non-racist, rather than an anti-racist. From my non-racism I derive fistr disagreement with you - that these facts overide anything bad that may come from the loss of a type of diversity that may acompany an anthropological shift. Though to be honest if someone doesn't want to marry a person of another race in order to preserve their race, that's fine by me. It's their individual choice. I think its daft but that's just my personal take on it, I respect their right to make that choice. I will not mourn for anthropological shifts, however. I will mourn for famine, disease, war, but nothing beyond those sorts of things.

    I really don't think that all of this, at the end of the day, is that unusual or controversial. We use similiar principles in other areas. For example over the last number of centuries humans have on the whole gotten taller thanks to dietary changes. Is this in itself a bad thing, because humans used to be one way and now they're not? Would we take the man seriously that mourned this, or called it a repungant immorality? No, such claims don't make sense. We could achieve more diversity by making sure that some people grow up small while others grow up tall...would this be an inherently good thing? Obviously not. Because this is just a physical difference, as are racial differences.

    Imagine that, for whatever reason, women with large breasts begin dying out, until women only have relatively small breats at some point in the future. Is this inherently as bad thing, being a loss in diversity? No, it wouldn't be an inherently bad thing...an no-one would take seriously the claim that it is (well some guys might be annoyed, but I'm talking moral badness here). This is because our idea of who people are is not derived from their mere physical appearance. Women are not their looks, and by the same common token I am not my race. The loss of diversity is in itself morally neutral.

    Animals are different because we don't treat them as persons, and therefore the individuality, which the arguments above rest on, isn't there. Yes there is a quantative sense in which animals are individuals, but its not the same...that's merely a demonstration of how ambigious the term 'individual' is. I'm talking of personhood. You're wrong in contending that Pandas have complex concepts such as that of species or even the self. You're personifying animals to an incorrect degree, and this is where much of your confusion, I think, stems from with regard to you equivocating the protection of a wild, endangered species with the protection of a vague anthropological group.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iago)
    OK...thankyou for finally engaging in debate. No hard feelings here either, I'm glad you've acceeded to my request (and it was just a request, this isn't about posturing or winning or losing). I can see your argument now...I couldn't before in your previous style. Maybe you can still see arguments using that style, but I can't keep track of debate that way. That's just a fact about me, it can't be helped.

    I wan't to engage with your first point of contention before we move on, because there's a lot to get through - don't worry, I'm not ignoring all the other stuff...I'm just putting it to one side for now.

    OK - you're distinction between anti-racism and not being a racist with regard to me:

    I see the distinction you're making, in that there is a different between the general idea of not being a racist and the distinct claim that there are no genuine racial differences to some extent or another.

    All I can say here is that you've misconstrued my basic original premise, which is why i'm tackling this first. I'm not denying the existence of racial groups as such...as you rightfully pointed out, I use them to make a lot of the points in my arguments. I agree that any flat out denial of racial difference is silly - like you said earlier in one of your posts, put someone in a room with a Caucasian, a Negro, and an Indian etc., and they'll soon work out that there's something going on here, so to speak. It's not rocket science, nor rocket anthropology.

    But at no point during my posts (I apologise if I expressed myself poorly) did I make anything close to a statement to the effect of denying racial differences. What I have been saying with regard to racial differences are the following things, to name a few:

    1) Racial differences are rooted in the the notion of anthropological groups. As you've said yourself, this 'science' (it is on the bounderies of science) is not exact, and is more of a vague model for charting an aspect of human development than anything else. So yes, there are racial groups, in a sense...but they are not the clearly defined groups your argument seems to rest upon. They are instead vague groupings - hence my constant use of terms like 'vague anthropological groups'. You seem to agree with me here on face value, where we disagree is where you read to much into what you think me to be implying by using this term. I'm not dismissing anthropology, I'm just being clear about what it is - what it is like as a subject.
    But it's not that vague, and applies to other things we accept without question, for example, as I mentioned before, diamonds and coal, or different species of animals.

    The difference is that for political reasons these minor vague areas are much more highlighted in racial terms, than they are in other terms.

    Nothing in this world is exact, there are always grey areas, but we often chose to ignore them because frankly they are not that important.

    In terms of racial groupings, sure there are grey areas, but it doesn't detract from the fact that there are very obvious racial groups, and these groups have a relevancy, which is why we use them in medicine, science etc.

    I also showed above how they have relevence beyond the scientific world, in the world of culture, entertainment, and if you look around in just about every facet of life. As I mentioned above even scent can be defined racially.

    2) Racial differences are very different to differences in species, in terms of importance, the difference it makes, the fluidity of the groupings, and the vagueness of what defines the groupings.
    I disagree, I see no less importance, or no more vaguery in terms of racial groupings than I do with animal groupings, which can also be vague, and with anomalies, and that have over laps.

    I also thing that if we look at history, the different raial groups have evolved differently, and without some of the differences surrounding certain racial groupings we wouldn't be sitting here today having this conversation, so I think that adds a level of importance to those groupings.

    If we look to the future then perhaps as time goes on, perhaps already, those groupings become less significant, with the shrinking world, better communication, and multiculturism, but that might not be a good thing, and we won't be able to decide that until we've seen the proof of it's fruits, we can only speculate, as is the intention here.

    This is reflected by the way in which one distinction belongs primarily to a hard science, and the other to a quasi-science.
    I think it's more political than scientifical.

    If political correctness dictated that racial differences were a good thing, and differences between species in animals was a bad thing, then the position would be reversed.

    In fact again, looking at history, we have seen, under different political positions, the positions of these sciences elevated or demoted.

    3) In fact, the very differences you accuse me of denying are actually the basis for much of my argument and many of my value judgements here. As someone above rightfully pointed out, you are committing the fallacy of conflating race with all of the things that merely co-incide with it: culture, nationhood, lifestyles, values etc.
    But all these things are relative to race. That much is obvious, therefore it could be argued, much more strongly, that you are making the fallacy of seperating them, rather than understanding the direct relationship between them.

    Culture is not race, but the race of a certain culture could not have, and did not, evolve under a different race, therefore you can not have that culture without that race, so whilst it is not part of the race itself, it is so tightly related that it cannot be seen without the race.

    In that respect maybe I interchange words to easily, but that is just semantics, and in no way undermines the validity of the argument, where as to seperate the race and the culture, or even the multiracial, and the culture that produces, is invalid.

    but most importantly identity. The nature of racial differences is that they are almost purely physical - these vague anthropological groups (I will continue to use the term, because it is appropriate) are divided along things like general body shape, tendencies towards certain hair and eye colours etc. etc. You get the picture.
    But that is the point, that is not correct at all.

    You are again divorcing race from culture, enviroment, etc., and bringing it down purely to a physical sense, and then saying look, it's only physical, well of course it is if we ignore all the other variables, but the other variables are intrinsically linked and can not be divorced.

    It's like talking about a plant, and ignoring the soil types and climates, but with out soil types and climates the plant is dead, it doesn't even exist to start with, so the soil type may not be the plant itself, but is an essential extension of it, and related to it so tightly that it can not survive without it.

    When we pull back and look at the bigger picture, and include all the variables we begin to see culture and enviroment, and how that affects the race, but is also affected by the race, in fact in the terms of culture it is a total extension of the race. Without the race there would be no culture.

    Therefore it is far more than just about bone structures, skull types, hair styles, eye colours etc., it becomes part of the very essence of the individual, right down to affecting tastes in music, foods, the woment we find attractive, all things affected by culture, the very culture that our races built and created.

    That is way beyond just physical.

    Race is the icing on the cake of the physical makeup of a human being, so to speak. This is what I am contending
    And as I have demonstrated it is far more than that.

    That is perhaps but a few percentage points, if that, of what race and culure is about, in fact I would probably revise it to less than a percentage point as you can shave a persons hair off, give them cosmetic surgery, etc. etc. and the racial and cultural differences would still be enormous, so the physical is almost irrelevent.

    4) From these premises I proceed to make very different value judgements to you, which is where the majority of our heated disagreement seems to stem from. In a nutshell, I am not contending that race not exist, I am contending that it doesn't matter all that much.
    But we have seen it does.

    To bring back one of my previous points.

    Culture is a product of the people, and the people that most influence us, and the people that define culture, are predominantly of the same race as us.

    Even more so the further we go back in time, and seeing as you are discussing the history of music here, you are going back in time, are you not?

    These musical styles first began to develop seperately at a time when the races had almost non-existant interaction, to there cultures were predominantly monoracial and monocultural.

    In other words, again, it is race related.

    Imagine if only one race had ever existed.

    What would music be like today?

    Would you prefer that?

    You state that race doesn't matter all that much, but as it is intrinsically linked to culture, and the root of cultural diversity, without race there would not be the music we have today, the science we have today, the technology, the arts, the architecture, in fact almost everything that makes us what we are.

    We would not even be having this conversation, as langauge is a cultural development, and culture is a development of race, and we would not have the internet to have this conversation on, for similar reasons.

    How can you claim that all that doesn't matter all that much?

    It's the very building blocks of civilization.

    - A lot of what we're debating about has to do with identity, as we've both recognised. Because genuine racial differences account for so little in what we naturally value in other human beings and in ourselves (though they do exist!) I am contending that personal identity is not, for the most part, derived from race.
    And I contend the opposite is true, unless you developed in a bubble.

    We ought value humans as individuals, and in doing so we must render race relatively irrelevant (I'm a poet).
    And I contend that we should value individuals, but also their collective abilities.

    Answer me this, how can you build a pyramid as an individual?

    It could only be acheived as a group venture.

    In fact, as I have already stated, the group culture is the very foundations of civilization.

    We bcame civilized, and began to evolve (non-physically) much faster, when we stopped roaming around as individuals and formed the first villages, towns and cities, and became, instead of just an individual, an individual within a collective group.

    It is part of everything, when you walk out of your door in a morning there is virtually nothing that could exist if it we were purely individuals, in fact the house you live in, and the door you walk through, would not exist, it's that important a part of who and what we are.

    It as far from irrelevent as we can get.

    You continually assert that traits etc. are inhereted, and while that is sort of true (we are influenced much more by the enviroment than you think...even when it comes to shaping how our inhereted 'traits' actually turn out to manifest themselves...we inherit general dispositions rather than traits)
    That is highly debatable, but even if it were correct our enviroment was also created by us, so in that respect we still inherit it from our racial past.

    this isn't impacted on by race. At least not where it matters - which is areas such as personality etc. - the realm of the mental - and more external, social stuff, like culture/lifestyle etc.
    Of course it is, in fact it is one of the most major factors. Our cultures are shaped by the people, and the people are the races.

    Our personality, is a mixture of our inherited, and our experianced, we can argue forever over what percentage of each is a contributer, but our inheritance is racial, and the enviroment was shaped by the people, by the culture, and therefore by race also.

    If you live in a violent society that is going to affect your personality, but the society was not violent just by chance, but as a result of the cultural evolution of the society, by the morals and values of the society, which were all shaped in turn by the racial collective.

    Therefore your personality was shaped by race, maybe not in terms of chemicals or bones, but without race things would be very different.

    Just look at the cultures of the world, it's as plain as the nose on your face.

    Race does impact on our physical features, obviously...but these do not take priority in our concept of the individual. Our language reflects this - a distinction between one's self and one's body pervades it.
    Again you are stuck on the physical.

    So I am contending we ought not deal with people, on a moral or conceptual level, racially. It is an irrational corruption of our concept of an individual person - it degrades the individual, denies them their status as an individual.
    Far from it, to ignore the collective devalues everything that seperates us from our base physical presence.

    We are individuals, but we have only learned to grow because we learned that we can be more than individuals as well.

    You seem to think there is something bad about being part of a collective, but it is the thing that has made us what we are today, and it is so obvious that is an intensly important part of who and what we are.

    If we are just individual, uncoordinated entities, all pulling in seperate directions, then we can not progress, and therefore the individual suffers.

    The individual can only reach it's full potential because it is part of something bigger also.

    Racists make the mistake of attatching things that do matter to race - such as personality traits/cultural trends etc. This is not an accurate genetic/anthropological picture, it is a fallacy.
    Not correct, that is an anti-racist fallacy.

    I have already demonstrated, quite clearly, in this thread, with my mourning of the passing of other races, and my desire to preserve other races that I am not racist.

    You argue that a race being wiped out is unimportant, is that not the "racist" attitude?

    Therefore is it not the racist that downplays the real significance of race, that denies the obvious variables that are connected with who we are, what we are, and our evolution?

    Back to my bell curve thing. You criticise it because I am using the very same groups I am denying the existence of, but now that I have made it quite clear that I am not denying their existence, that argument falls.
    No, I merely commented on the humour that I find when people try to use the bell curve, whilst denying the importance of race, because of the contradictory nature of such an agrument, however I did demonstrate quite fully why it is an irrelevent argument anyway.

    You also seem to not believe that it is true
    No, see my above post, I recognize quite fully it is true, but go on to show that if we pull back, and look at the bigger picture, rather than just one facet that suits our argument the model no longer stands up.

    and that there if we were to plot such graphs, the distance between the bell curves would be large enough in many areas so as to make racial differences matter in our concept of individual people. On this all I can say is that you are simply wrong, and that a cursory examination of the world around you, let alone a scientific study, will show you to be so.
    My experiances, and all scientific studies I have read suggest I am right, and in fact, in this particular argument it is one of the few places I find common ground not only between non-racists, but also racist and anti-racists, a rarity indeed, as the racist pushes it as an argument for racial supremacies, and the anti-racist has been known to push it to dispute the relevancy of the bell curve, to show it is more than just about IQ's.

    I have not found many other areas where those three disperate groups meet in common agreement like that.

    Since I am agreeing with an absoloute mainstream scientific consensus on this matter, the burden is on you to present us with good studies that show the opposite.
    I dispute it is an absoloute mainstream scientific consensus, therefore the burden of proof is for you to prove it is, before you demand proof to show the opposite.

    I'll even give you a fair break on this one, I won't even ask you to prove it is an absolute mainstream scientific consensus, I won't even ask you to proof it is a majority view, I will ask you to bring forward two peer reviewed and scientificly recognised studies, across the entire mental spectrum (not just IQ's) that proves conclusively the argument you put forward, and if you do that I will accept the findings (within the confines of this debate) without a quibble, however they has to be across the entire mental spectrum, no corners cut.

    That's not much to ask is it?

    Do that and we'll move on from that position.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    In order for racial extinction to occure there must be definable and separate races. Modern science shows us that race is a multi-dimensional continuum. It is very easy to perceive 'race' in terms of core groups. We can easily say a man from Shanhai is 'Sino-Mongolian' or that a native Swede is 'White-European/Caucasian', but for much of the worlds population such definitions do not work. Due to mixing, and divergence throughout History, many people exist in intermediate groups that cannot be easily defined. How does one define an Afghan, or a Turk, or Arab who all have blond hair and blue eyes as being non-white, or define them as white when many of their blood relations are dark skinned, and posses 'sino-mongloid' feature?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SolInvincitus)
    In order for racial extinction to occure there must be definable and separate races. Modern science shows us that race is a multi-dimensional continuum. It is very easy to perceive 'race' in terms of core groups. We can easily say a man from Shanhai is 'Sino-Mongolian' or that a native Swede is 'White-European/Caucasian', but for much of the worlds population such definitions do not work. Due to mixing, and divergence throughout History, many people exist in intermediate groups that cannot be easily defined.
    Well we've already discussed that there are grey areas, but these are totaly minute, in fact in most cases not even scientifically measurable, so I don't know what modern scientific papers you are refering to.

    For example let us look at the Jewish people, an ethnic group in diaspora, so therefore more susceptible to genetic mixing than a race in a monoracial society.

    Less than 0.5% admixture

    Thousands of years in foreign countries, amongst foreign people, disperate groups scattered around the globe, and yet less than 0.5% admixture.

    What about America?

    The hot bed of modern multiculturism, and multiracism, slavery, abuses, mixed marriages, and yet the latest genetic research shows that the black admixture in white people is of an "insignificant" level, and we are advised to dismiss it, as it is to low to be useful to us in scientific purposes.

    Here's a recent quote for you

    The bottom line is that American whites certainly have less black ancestry than the Portuguese, and probably have less Amerindian ancestry than Iberians (Helgason et al. 2001).
    Less Amerindian ancestry than Iberians?

    How many Amerindians do you know in Iberia?

    This is less than minute traces we are talking about, scientifically useless data, and this is coming from multiracial nations, what do you think the data shows for monoracial communities?

    Most of the world can't even hit these insignificant figures.

    Yes, there are grey areas, but science tells us they are a lot, lot, lot smaller than those with political agendas tell us.

    How does one define an Afghan, or a Turk, or Arab who all have blond hair and blue eyes as being non-white, or define them as white when many of their blood relations are dark skinned, and posses 'sino-mongloid' feature?
    Usually we discover that the Turk with blond hair is not a Turk, the same with the Arab, I think perhaps you are mixing up political borders, geographical borders, and race.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You're conflating race with things like personality and culture and self-identity still. You have to stop doing that though, or else produce the evidence of all the claims you have been making. You keep denying so many of my premises by simply dismissing them out of hand. You really have to see the vital distinction - both logically and causually - between racial groups and more complex superstructures such as culture, self-identity etc. These things may piggyback along racial lines, if the circumstances favour it...obviously any culture or self-identities have to be housed in people, and people have race. But the link is indirect...these things are not aspects of race, or caused by race. The parts of the genetic picture that deal with racial characteristics and mental life don't have as much impact on each other as you seem to think they do. This is the scientific consensus. This doesn't mean that I'm right but it does mean that the burden is on you to produce evidence, which you simply have not done.

    You really have to see the fallacy in your reasoning here before you can understand a word of what we're saying.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The death of a race is unfortunate in so far as it brought and brings suffering. Real human suffering, not just the loss of diversity (diversity goes up and down naturally in all areas all the time...it's a feature of biological world).

    The death of a race is not, purely considered in itself, unfortunate, or fortunate. It carries no moral standing.

    Those are my positions. This is another distinction you need to make...between the actual events that occurs when a race dies, and the idea of the race dying. Be in doubt, what you are defending is the latter. We all agree that famine and war and disease etc. are terrible things, that cause great suffering. No-one is saying these things aren't unfortunate. If a race dies via one of these things it is an unfortunate event. But it is not unfortunate because of the race-death aspect, it is unfortunate because of the human reality of what's happening.

    This does not make me a racist. Racists judge races to be superior to others...to be of more moral worth, and allow this racial hierachy to dominate their treatment and judgement of others. I am not doing anything like this, you are stretching the term beyond belief.

    I understand your valuing of diversity, I really do. It is a good value. But it must not be allowed to stand in the way of truly important and vital values, such as personhood, individuality, free will. Human beings are not to be treated as if they are wild animals, we shall not be placing anthropological groups under protection schemes as if they were endangered pandas. We're a bit more complex than that, and the natural world is even more complex. Attempting to engineer and modify natural anthropological shifts purely for the sake of aesthetics...that's not our natural place.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iago)
    You're conflating race with things like personality and culture and self-identity still.
    But these things can not exist without race, therefore they are a part of it.

    You have to stop doing that though, or else produce the evidence of all the claims you have been making.
    Actually we are still waiting for your proof to back up your claims in post #46, I don't think we should get to far ahead of ourselves in the proof thing, or the whole thread could grind to a messy halt.

    You keep denying so many of my premises by simply dismissing them out of hand.
    No, by showing they are wrong.

    What else can I do under such circumstances?

    I can hardly be expected to admit something that is fundementally wrong.

    You really have to see the vital distinction - both logically and causually - between racial groups and more complex superstructures such as culture, self-identity etc.
    I see it, but you have to learn to see the unbreakable connections.

    Your whole argument relies on the impossible, and can only exist by removing everything from it's proper context.

    All I am doing is returning things to their proper place.

    These things may piggyback along racial lines, if the circumstances favour it...obviously any culture or self-identities have to be housed in people, and people have race.
    And therefore there is a link that can not be broken, and a link that is important to this whole discussion.

    If we remove that then we are removing the context of everything, and therefore the realities of the world.

    We do not live on paper, or in theory, we live in the real world, and have to view things within that context.

    But the link is indirect...these things are not aspects of race, or caused by race.
    I have demonstrated quite the opposite to be true, and shown the link can not be broken.

    The parts of the genetic picture that deal with racial characteristics and mental life don't have as much impact on each other as you seem to think they do. This is the scientific consensus.
    See post #46, if you insist on keep claiming things to be scientific consensus you can produce the proof requested of you.

    I note it's absence from this post, even though I made it quite clear, in a very generous gesture, that I would settle for a compromise.

    This doesn't mean that I'm right but it does mean that the burden is on you to produce evidence, which you simply have not done.
    No, we have already established this is not true, see post #46.

    You can not keep claiming something, and refusing to back up that claim.

    Until such time as you do so then your future posts will remain as meaningless as this one was.

    You merely tried to repeat the same claim as in your last post, whilst again refusing to back up that claim.

    Repetition is not a valid argument.

    This post really was a waste of both my time and yours.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    But these things can not exist without race, therefore they are a part of it.
    Yes I know I know I know I've been saying that all along, and made it doubly clear in my last two posts because you keep missing it. Obviosuly these things cannot exist without race, because culture and identity etc. are things that exist in human minds, and human minds come with human bodies, and human bodies come with race. They are both aspects of humanity...this does not go anywhere near showing that they are connected, and as many of us have been arguing they are not. An object is both square and red, it's redness wouldn't be able to exist if it were not also for the squareness, but this does not mean that redness is a part of squareness. They're seperate phenomenon that indirectly piggyback each other.

    Actually we are still waiting for your proof to back up your claims in post #46, I don't think we should get to far ahead of ourselves in the proof thing, or the whole thread could grind to a messy halt.
    Still waiting for yours. You're the guy saying stuff like 'Western africans evolve last'. You're going to have to start at reworking the entire theory of evolution, and then move on from there. You should start now, I agree with you that we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves.

    What do you mean by humans in western africa 'evolved last?' Do you have anything credible to back you up?

    No, by showing they are wrong.

    What else can I do under such circumstances?

    I can hardly be expected to admit something that is fundementally wrong.
    Agreed, but you could least argue against them. You do not show them to be wrong, unless simply stating that I am foolish to believe it and that it is obviously wrong makes it wrong. You've still yet to profer a shred of evidence for what are extraordinary claims contrary to recieved opinion.

    Actually stuff it, I don't even want proof so much as argument. For example, you keep insisting that actually mental traits are aspects of race, or are directly caused by race...why do you believe this, instead of the common genetic picture that actually genes cannot truly be held responsible for such complex social games like culture etc. - that these things arise primarily from social interaction and co-incide with racial bounderies on occasion?

    I see it, but you have to learn to see the unbreakable connections.

    Your whole argument relies on the impossible, and can only exist by removing everything from it's proper context.

    All I am doing is returning things to their proper place.
    No you're not, you're getting it all mixed up. I know that race and personality and identity and culture and all this stuff is in a sense inseperable because they all take place in the same thing - humans. And they take place together at once. In this sense they are inseperable...but it is not this sense the debate hinges on. The point is that conceptually they are seperated as two distinct properties of man (i.e. racial differences don't logically equate to mental differences), and casually they are seperated by a very indirect link, a piggybacking link.

    And therefore there is a link that can not be broken, and a link that is important to this whole discussion.

    If we remove that then we are removing the context of everything, and therefore the realities of the world.

    We do not live on paper, or in theory, we live in the real world, and have to view things within that context.
    See above.

    I have demonstrated quite the opposite to be true, and shown the link can not be broken.
    See above.

    See post #46, if you insist on keep claiming things to be scientific consensus you can produce the proof requested of you.

    I note it's absence from this post, even though I made it quite clear, in a very generous gesture, that I would settle for a compromise.
    You were the first one to make wild claims about the state of scientific theory, but you didn't bother showing evidence that the 'western africans evolved last' theory was one taken seriously by the scientific community. That really isn't how evolution works as I've already argued.

    No, we have already established this is not true, see post #46.

    You can not keep claiming something, and refusing to back up that claim.

    Until such time as you do so then your future posts will remain as meaningless as this one was.

    You merely tried to repeat the same claim as in your last post, whilst again refusing to back up that claim.

    Repetition is not a valid argument.

    This post really was a waste of both my time and yours.
    You can not keep claiming something, and refusing to back up that claim.

    Until such time as you do so then your future posts will remain as meaningless as this one was.

    You merely tried to repeat the same claim as in your last post, whilst again refusing to back up that claim.

    Repetition is not a valid argument.

    This post really was a waste of both my time and yours
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iago)
    Repetition is not a valid argument.

    This post really was a waste of both my time and yours
    I hope to avoid your problem - will you summarise your posts in this thread and post credible support.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iago)
    You can not keep claiming something, and refusing to back up that claim.

    Until such time as you do so then your future posts will remain as meaningless as this one was.

    You merely tried to repeat the same claim as in your last post, whilst again refusing to back up that claim.

    Repetition is not a valid argument.

    This post really was a waste of both my time and yours
    A very childish and poor attempt to be clever, and a complete avoidance of providing the evidence that you claim is so readily available.

    Let's make it clear shall we Iago, let's break it down into simple terms.

    I releted the story of two groups of ethnic people, two races, two tribes, that became extinct, and then asked if this was a good thing, or a bad thing, and wether we should try to prevent it in the future.

    You tried to answer that with your initial post, which I brokedown into tiny little pieces, because it was so poor, and showed how wrong it was.

    You completely avoided responding to that post (avoidance seems to be something that appears often in your world), and it would appear quite probable that you were incapable of responding to that post.

    You continued to talk, refusing to recognise where you'd already been exposed as wrong, and repeating these points and expanding on them.

    At this stage you brought in the IQ bell curve, and made claims upon it, that I highlighted were false, because IQ did not cover the entire spectrum that you were talking about, and therefore you were providing one peice of data, but making claims from it that did not follow.

    You responded to this by making the claim that if we applied your theory accross the spectrum we would come to the same result.

    I challanged this, and you responded by claiming it was an "absoloute mainstream scientific consensus"

    I challanged you to back this up.

    You have ignored virtually every point made, avoided addressing them, and based the majority of your argument around the one claim.

    It is your claim, and you were challanged on it, told to back it up.

    Now either the claim is correct, or it is false.

    If it is correct then you can provide evidence to back it up.

    If it is false then no evidence can be provided, because you can not "prove" a negative.

    Therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

    I was very generous to you, I agreed to allow you to provide evidence that partially backed up your claim, I didn't even insist that you backed it up completely.

    I was very generous to you and agreed if you even partially backed up your claim that I would accept it without quibble, even though a partial backing up of it would not mean it was correct, or without question.

    This has come on top of my genorsity of allowing you to avoid my entire first response to you, and not to press you on a multitude of points, and facts, that you have avoided.

    In response to that I get a very childish attempt to be clever, by parroting my words in much the same manner that a 5 year old would in a playground.

    "You smell"

    "No you smell"

    Is that it?

    Well, you were unable to respond to my first post, you've avoided point after point after point, and been unable to back up the claims that your argument was based on.

    I think that resolves the matter quite clearly.

    I do not have the time to waste going round and round in circles with someone who is not civil enough to respond to posts, neg reps people for petty reasons, is unable to back up their arguments, and resorts to childish taunts, and japes, as witnessed in primary school playgrounds, and isn't man enough to admit when they are wrong.

    I am not going to run around in circles whilst you immaturely try to hang on to your ego.

    I was fair with you, and you made no attempt.

    Just as you avoided my opening post to you, and just as you avoided many points in this thread, you have now avoided, more than once, providing this scientific data that backs up your argument (simply because it does not exist).

    If you are unwilling to co-operate in a debate, and only willing to be repatative, repeating points long since dealt with, and that you are incapable of backing up, then there really is no debate, is there?

    If you feel like acting in a mature manner in the future, or if you grow enough spine to admit when you are wrong, then PM me, and we can start again, until then this discussion is closed.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.