 |
| |
|
|
ranskaldan
|
 |
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Why would they? The burden of proof is on you.
|
I'm posing a possibility, not a definite proof. You are posing the impossibility and opposing the possibility; hence you have to prove your point.
quote:
Atheism is morally righteous because it liberates people from the authority of doctrine, to seek a morality rooted in compassion for other human beings. Atheists are no less "in line" (by that, I mean they don't committ more murders, etc.) than theists.
Morality can be either good or bad. Just because it's rooted in a religious doctrine doesn't make it good, and just because it isn't doesn't make it bad. |
Exactly... in the same way that the stripping away of deism did not diminish morality, neither would investigations into human phenotypes diminish our celebration of human diversity, to borrow a PC term.
quote:
Again, that post wasn't addressing the truthfulness of your claims. Just whether anyone has any business investigating them. |
Well... that's a different matter then. So you're conceding that such differences in race are possible?
quote:
But the phenotypic trends often run counter to racial classifications. |
Like?
Do you mean things like putting Khoisans under blacks, for instance?
If so, then that's a mis-classification. But the scientific need for classification remains.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It is a meaningless term as far as humans are concerned. Other species do have races, however. The term, therefore has meaning in relation to biologists. |
So? give an example of a species whose members can't always interbreed.
Besides, so what term are you going to use instead of human races? "Phenotypical groups"? That's just pointless political correctness.
quote:
BTW, in some cases, members of different species in the same genus can interbreed (horses and donkeys, lions and tigers). Races aren't incapable of interbreeding, they simply won't interbreed. (My previous use of can't was an overstatement.)
|
Mules and ligers, btw, are sterile.
Offspring between subspecies however, like the domestic and Przewalski's horse, are not sterile.
Same goes for human phenotypical groups. And we call this "race".
quote:
As I pointed out twice before in this thread alone, there is a biological term and a social term. What is happening, is that biological traits are being ascribed to social catagories. This is what I am arguing against. You might as well assert that there are biological differences between the rich and poor. It makes as much sense. |
There ARE biological differences between races (or whatever you decide to call them). I would also disagree with equating biological and social terms, but biology is biology - there are differences, there are trends, and closing your eyes won't make them go away.
quote:
And don't assert you stand for the rest of the world. That the general public might use a word one way doesn't mean that the word isn't used scientifically another way. And the general public, as a whole, doesn't use the word that was as there is a strong push to use only the scientific definition. |
So? How would you propose be the solution to the problem of the people of the world seeing "race" when you don't?
People have eyes. They can see phenotypical differences, and like all humans, they classify. Any struggle against racism should be based on philosophies like human dignity, not a denial of the existence of race. Only then would such a struggle both make sense scientifically and appeal to the public.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carver
I was trying to stay away from this racebait fest, but you are a vucking idiot. There is absolutely nothing scientific about "racial" classifications. There is no knowledgeable means of stating "a 'white' person's DNA will have these qualities and a 'black' person's DNA will have these".
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR VARIOUS HUMAM 'RACES'.
Knowledgeable geneticists will tell you that there is more variation within each 'race' than there are between 'races'.
Race is a social construct. Some Europeans call Gypsies black. |
ARGH! A third person to argue against!!!
Anyway, you might want to check your language 
And did I tell you that you just discounted every single shred of scientific classification? Indeed, there is more similarity between gallium and germanium than between gallium and sodium! Hence terms like "metal", "non-metal", "energy", "matter", "plant", "animal", "white dwarf", "red giant" etc are all meaningless!
Please... there's an organ between your ears. At least, notice its existence.
Oh yes: if you haven't noticed yet, black people have more melanin and thicker lips, as well as a different hair structure and different chances of sickle-cell anemia, than white people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
There is reason to believe it so: different breeds of dogs have different temperaments. |
Saying that differences in humany are similar to breeds of dogs is absurd. It's not true in the least, and certainly is no basis for anything.
quote:
Never did I say that blacks are more violent than whites. |
Cali did. That was the point of the thread.
quote:
"Violence" isn't exactly a genetic trait either. |
Sure it is. Just about everything, to some extent, is a genetic trait (even if it takes thousands of genes to represent).
quote:
But melanin productions certainly isn't the only trait found in the human genome. |
I never asserted that.
quote:
If you think research into area won't benefit humankind - fine. But the truth's there, whether or not human beings want to find it. |
What truth? Differences in agressiveness or intelligence aren't there, and can't be investigated. Other differences are there (for instance, resistances to certain diseases), and are being investigated.
quote:
But why would they be improbable? |
I've already have explained why; there are no conceivable selective differentials on these traits.
quote:
Exactly, as I said, that's a misclassification. But that does not remove the need for scientific classification. |
What are purposes of this "scientific" classification? Since differences in peoples are relatively insignificant, and there are hardly any clear lines between them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
So? How would you propose be the solution to the problem of the people of the world seeing "race" when you don't?
People have eyes. They can see phenotypical differences, and like all humans, they classify. Any struggle against racism should be based on philosophies like human dignity, not a denial of the existence of race. Only then would such a struggle both make sense scientifically and appeal to the public. |
One hundred years ago, there was a German race, a French race, a Jewish race, etc. Everyone knew this to be true, despite the fact that today we know it to have been nonesense. The fact that people today still call something race, doesn't mean it inherently has value.
Race, as you are discussing, is a social catagory. If you were Chinese and you lived in California in the 1860s, legally you were Black. There was no Asian race in the California legal system.
Over time, in the United States, race has come to be equated with phenotype. We no longer talk about the Slavic "race" or the Scandinavian "race." We think of our own catagories as eternal and immutable, when in fact they are constantly changing. Only ten years ago, there was no multiracial catagory in the census. In Louisiania there are legal definitions of mulattos, quadroons, and octoroons. These are legal catagories people are placed in depending on the amount of African and European ancestry they have.
Furthermore, while it is fairly easy to say that an Icelander and a Mongol are "different races" it's not so easy to say that about say, and Icelander and an Italian, or an Italian and an Arab or an Arab and a Persian or a Perisan and a Turk or a Turk and a Mongol. and yet we smoothly transitioned from one to the other.
There are no clearly demarked races. It only seems that way when you throw Northern Europeans together with Sub-Saharan Africans, i.e., "opposite" ends of the spectrum.
In other words, people's eyes fool them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Saying that differences in humany are similar to breeds of dogs is absurd. It's not true in the least, and certainly is no basis for anything. |
Why?
They are totally analogous. The only difference is that dog breeds have many more differences among themselves than human races.
quote:
Cali did. That was the point of the thread. |
As far as I could see, he was asserting the possibility, not the certainty.
quote:
Sure it is. Just about everything, to some extent, is a genetic trait (even if it takes thousands of genes to represent). |
quote:
I never asserted that. |
Then why would you categorically deny the possibility of a certain phenotype having variations?
quote:
What truth? Differences in agressiveness or intelligence aren't there, and can't be investigated. Other differences are there (for instance, resistances to certain diseases), and are being investigated. |
If they aren't being investigated, how do you know they aren't there?
I'm not saying that it's a good thing if they're there, but how do you know they aren't?
quote:
I've already have explained why; there are no conceivable selective differentials on these traits. |
They can arise as side-effects due to changes in hormonal levels, for instance.
quote:
What are purposes of this "scientific" classification? Since differences in peoples are relatively insignificant, and there are hardly any clear lines between them. |
Scientific interest?
The same reason why we have comparative religion, or linguistics.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
I don't think races are pigeon-holing categories either, but they're there nontheless. |
But many people do think that way. When people start talking about behavioral traits or mental capacities of specific "races" that discusssion needs to be smashed in the bud by pointing out that race, as a social catagory for human beings is completely arbitrary. You can't point to any spot on the spectrum and say, this group is distinct. You know that, I know that, but some people here don't seem to know that. And once you toss in all the interbreeding between nations, tribs, etc. that goes on, it gets even more muddied.
Occam's razor says that the simplist explanation is most likely the actual one. When we have simple explanations for violent crime (poverty) and for lower test scores (poor schools) which do an excellent job, why look for the explanation in human genetics? Which I'm not saying you're doing, but which is the purpose of this thread.
Frankly, almost everyone who posits biological determinism has an agenda. In nearly ever case of this argument being raised in the past thirty years, the people raising the argument have been traced to white supremicist organizations. Even one of the authors of The Bell Curve was previously a member of a white supremacy organization.
When serious scientists discuss the question, they almost all say that no measurable differences have been discovered between the races, and yet a particular group continues to raise the same old worn arguments again and again (and generally using the same old studies), you have to wonder what they really want? Are they really trying to explore a question scientifially or are they trying to create a justification fo racism?
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 10-11-2002 at 10:24
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Why?
They are totally analogous. The only difference is that dog breeds have many more differences among themselves than human races. |
Exactly. The differences are far greater, so there's no basis for comparison.
quote:
As far as I could see, he was asserting the possibility, not the certainty. |
He's a racist, and any pretense of "what if" is bullshit.
quote:
If they aren't being investigated, how do you know they aren't there? |
Again, there aren't any differences in selective pressures for these traits, and the perceptions of these traits in populations living in similar environments often are quite different. I haven't investigated the pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon, but I know it's probably not there.
quote:
I'm not saying that it's a good thing if they're there, but how do you know they aren't? |
How would they be? There's absolutely no doubt the KKK, etc., would eat that up, and if you believe otherwise you're deluding yourself.
quote:
hey can arise as side-effects due to changes in hormonal levels, for instance. |
What are you talking about? What changes in hormonal levels?
quote:
Scientific interest?
The same reason why we have comparative religion, or linguistics. |
1. Those aren't sciences.
2. The lines that divide different genetic traits are so haphazard, they're meaningless.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dom Pedro II
|
 |
The College of New Jersey
Nov 1999
time: 05:23
|
|
I have long believed that there is no validity to race as a genetic reality. Of course, people who live together in certain areas have similar traits because they are more closely related and because of isolation. Still, a family might be characteristic for big noses, but one wouldn't be inclined to fit them into a category apart from another family or group of families. They might all be from the same race, or even different parts of the same overall family. "Race" is a spectrum not of categories but of billions of individuals.
Now, I would say that certain ethnic identities definitely have different general behaviors. This is due to a number of different factors including culture, socio-economic class, and such. What was somewhat ignored in the original example of races and prison populations is these environmental factors. The ratio of blacks to whites at or beneath the poverty level is definitely not equal. Consequently, the poor are more likely to engage in violent crimes or petty crimes than the wealthier classes (i.e. whiter classes). The crimes of the upper classes are tradiitonally more of white-collar crimes, and many of them have bought their way out of it. Also, more poor whites feel that social mobility is possible for them. Many urban, poor blacks have been sort of indoctrinated that their lives will never extend beyond the ghetto.
One theory I adhere to as well is that the ever-decreasing industries of the urban environment has created an employment bottleneck as corporations take their manufacturing divisions overseas. Personally, I think people forced to take jobs in the service sector where they are forced to wear funny paper hats, serve snooty wealthier people who treat you like garbage, and be forced to put up a professional facade by the orders of an over-bearing boss would basically try the patience of anyone. Its one thing when you're 16... its quite another when you're 35. It's degrading, and it certainly does not give one incentive to turn away the oppurtunity for greater money at higher risk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Exactly. The differences are far greater, so there's no basis for comparison. |
The differences in humans would therefore be smaller. Hence, anything that occur among dog breeds could also occur among human races at a smaller scale.
quote:
He's a racist, and any pretense of "what if" is bullshit.
|
Mmmm... I'm not going to turn this debate into one about Cali's personality.
quote:
Again, there aren't any differences in selective pressures for these traits, and the perceptions of these traits in populations living in similar environments often are quite different. I haven't investigated the pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon, but I know it's probably not there. |
But I did give you a mechanism by which such differences COULD very well arise. It's a lot more probable than unicorns of any colour.
quote:
How would they be? There's absolutely no doubt the KKK, etc., would eat that up, and if you believe otherwise you're deluding yourself. |
??? Are you arguing against my point? ???
quote:
What are you talking about? What changes in hormonal levels? |
Different climates could result in different chemical/hormonal balances. And that, as a side effect, could lead to different temperaments.
Note that I use COULD, it's not a certainty, but it's certainly a possibility.
quote:
1. Those aren't sciences.
2. The lines that divide different genetic traits are so haphazard, they're meaningless. |
Those are sciences in that they use the Scientific Method, making them different from art or theology. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
The differences in humans would therefore be smaller. Hence, anything that occur among dog breeds could also occur among human races at a smaller scale. |
Right, like at a scale of 0 length. You're not demonstrating anything by this comparison.
quote:
It's a lot more probably than unicorns of any colour. |
How?
quote:
??? Are you arguing against my point? ??? |
Ah, I thought you wrote "how do you know it isn't." As for your point, it has already been addressed, many times.
quote:
Different climates could result in different chemical/hormonal balances. And that, as a side effect, could lead to different temperants.
. |
1. That has absolutely nothing to do with a person's genses. If climates change temperment or whatever, they'd do so after birth.
2. There is absolutely no justification for different climates leading to different "temperments." This is totally absurd. Sounds like racist literature from a century ago.
quote:
Note that I use COULD, it's not a certainty, but it's certainly a possibility |
The pink unicorn on the moon is also a possibility.
quote:
Those are sciences in that they use the Scientific Method, making them different from art or theology. |
The classification of "race" has nothing to do with the scientific method.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Right, like at a scale of 0 length. You're not demonstrating anything by this comparison. |
Racial, or if you like, phenotypical differences between humans is NOT 0 in length.
quote:
How?
Ah, I thought you wrote "how do you know it isn't." As for your point, it has already been addressed, many times. |
How?
You have simply been telling me that it is improbable, without a reason why it is.
quote:
1. That has absolutely nothing to do with a person's genses. If climates change temperment or whatever, they'd do so after birth.
2. There is absolutely no justification for different climates leading to different "temperments." This is totally absurd. Sounds like racist literature from a century ago. |
There's an interlinking step between temperament and climate, by the way.
quote:
The pink unicorn on the moon is also a possibility. |
Since there are no unicorns anywhere and no air on the moon, it is very very unlikely.
But there ARE regional phenotypical differences on Earth.
quote:
The classification of "race" has nothing to do with the scientific method. |
Then neither does any classification. How would classifications like "metal", "non-metal" etc be any different?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Racial, or if you like, phenotypical differences between humans is NOT 0 in length. |
I never said they were. However, I was addressing intelligence, propensity towards violence, and the like.
quote:
How?
You have simply been telling me that it is improbable, without a reason why it is. |
I already have. There isn't any reasonable difference in selective pressures. And your hormone/climate/temperment theory has no scientific basis. And has nothing to do with the argument.
quote:
There's an interlinking step between temperament and climate, by the way. |
So? That doesn't make it less crazy. Find some evidence for your "theory" not from David Duke's web site.
quote:
Since there are no unicorns anywhere and no air on the moon, it is very very unlikely.
But there ARE regional phenotypical differences on Earth. |
Differences in intelligence between "races" is more likely than the pink unicorn on teh dark side of the moon, I'll grant you that. However, one difference doesn't mean any difference exists.
quote:
Then neither does any classification. How would classifications like "metal", "non-metal" etc be any different? |
They aren't. That's why music classifications can be so absurd.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-11-2002 09:37
I have to ask, did you understand my point ?
|