Someone called me white. I said nope. You then made a comment to me about me referencing colour and race, to which I again said nope.
Label that however you like; you seem to like trying to label people.
Race discussion with Big.Thirsty
- Thread starter Leigh
- Start date
Label that however you like; you seem to like trying to label people.
Color in no way determines race.
1
1031
Guest
sorry, I haven't read beyond this but having met you, it totally cracks me up. Sorry I was trying to wind you up with that just a bit
1
1031
Guest
I don't know if that's true or not. Based on what we know that sounds like it's true but I dunno, maybe there's more to it than what we know...maybe some groups exclusively share a set of traits or it's all just ethnicity like different breeds of dog or cat (not species mind you).
1
1031
Guest
They don't
1
1031
Guest
hmm, the word "exclusively" seems a bit of a cotter-pin to that statement I'm still gonna say that at some point in the past, yes people could be grouped and categorized with regard to geography and one would have found common traits that tended to identify them as different from other groups. You can disagree with that and I'm okay with that.
Merci.
The differences between what are recognised as 'races' are so insignificant that they could never be considered 'affecting' - therefore, by sheer scientific technicality, there are no fundamental differences.
Skin colour, although visually clear, is scientifically very insignificant so cannot be legitimately used as any basis for a point on differences.
The only way to observe significant differences is to focus on different species.
"Tended" maybe. Defined, no.hmm, the word "exclusively" seems a bit of a cotter-pin to that statement I'm still gonna say that at some point in the past, yes people could be grouped and categorized with regard to geography and one would have found common traits that tended to identify them as different from other groups. You can disagree with that and I'm okay with that.
I certainly hope I'm not rubbing anyone the wrong way. I'm enjoying the discussion too.
Then you know I'm not black@Leigh, I assumed you were black for some reason and googled you. Pretty sure I just saw your dick.
Just to clarify, the differences I am talking about are mostly genetic, not physically visible.
I do not hold science to the standard of being definitive, as the word references agreement/authority, it is sort of a loaded word to apply to any assessment of all science.
The theory of evolution is not definitive by definition.
White/Asian guys having small dicks is a social construct.Then you know I'm not black
When the genetic variation within a designated race vastly exceeds the genetic variation between races, the lines for determining race genetically are arbitrary.
I know what you mean and that it aligns to the spirit of your position, so I wont get all semantic here, but nothing is 'arbitrary' in science/genetics.
you don't believe that exists
It is if someone tries to define a race genetically.
"The genetic variation between the averages of the groups of people that are commonly considered races"
Better?
Leigh,
Real curious here if you don't mind spending a few more minutes on this topic (we are well past the point of changing each others mind obviously)...
You mentioned having the opposite view a few years ago and your mind was changed, what were your points/positions on race being physically real when you held such belief? (your side of the discussion that converted you)
Real curious here if you don't mind spending a few more minutes on this topic (we are well past the point of changing each others mind obviously)...
You mentioned having the opposite view a few years ago and your mind was changed, what were your points/positions on race being physically real when you held such belief? (your side of the discussion that converted you)
Still not arbitrary, as much as you disagree with them there are numerous elite hard scientists that disagree with you on this topic, their data is not 'arbitrary'.
Granted their interpretation of it or collection methods and underlying tests may be flawed, but it is not arbitrary.
I ignorantly thought that black people, Asians etc were genetically different and had different traits. Eg blacks had an advantage at sprinting. Someone said in an online discussion like this one that race isn't real and it opposed my belief system, so I did some reading. I believe vutulaki/ladyboy (or whatever he goes by nowadays) had the same experience.
Kinda like I did on this thread with race and phrenology. I had read stuff about it previously but the stuff
@IschKabibble was posting looked interesting.
Fascinating, respect.
It's a rapidly changing subject (race and genetics) so our opinions on the topic must be open to influence, there is a huge social science revolt over the physical science in progress, so it should be a hot button issue for the foreseeable future.
Theory, especially one based on assumptions shouldn't be held as fact.
Whether speaking genetically or physically i still think the the blow statement applies.
Logic dictates that if a paramater is not a definite way of classifying something it cannot be said that its a defining factor to that group.
Last edited: