Yes it is. You don't get to backfill the definition of race with genetics.
Lets try this. Describe a negro.
Race discussion with Big.Thirsty
- Thread starter Leigh
- Start date
Lets try this. Describe a negro.
You're the one having trouble with definitions here.
Are you suggesting one can't generalize the appearance of someone based on the word "negro?"
Yes just try it.
I can. But I won't. Because you're trying to bait me into a racist conversation. It's why you used "negro" instead of Chinese or Scandinavian.
None of my points are being refuted here...
Neither Scandinavian or chinese are races that's why.
Why's that? You can't tell them apart?
Yes you can. Sami Finno-Ugric are easily distinguishable from the other Scandinavian people. As are northern Chinese from their turnip head looking southern cousins.
So you agree that general yet distinguishable psychical differences exist?
For the last time. ... yes mate
Then you agree with me that race isn't just a social construct, correct?
That's not an opinion. If you read my post earlier, I'm not sure what you think you proved, but Big Thirsty's contention was race has a physical, or scientific, basis. He backed this claim with supposed "new research from the genome" that demonstrated this claim, specifically citing a particular book whose science has been called dubious at best.This is an opinion. Nobody was being scientific about the word until the social definitions came into play. And even in the context of language, I've proven that to be false.
A scientific, physical definition means subspecies categorization within the species. As previously mentioned, there is only an average of 15% of difference between groups genetically. There is more difference within groups. The threshold for classification as a subspecies is 25-35% genetic variation.
I'm not sure what your photograph collage proves other than that the social constructions of ethnicity we have can be grouped by agreed upon traits.
No. Your claim was that there was genetic evidence, new research from the genome, that had unlocked the truth about race. That is not some arbitrary definition. That is a physical, scientific definition. Saying "a physical basis" has no meaning whatsoever except according to biology. Saying "I look at people and see something that to my eyes looks different" is the type of empiricism the scientific method was invented to overthrow.
Earlier you made a comparison to flat earthers. It's fairly easy to see how people came to that conclusion going by line of sight. We have the sciences so we can get to measures of exactitude not shifting definitions that mean whatever we like. If those are the definitions we're using, they are social in nature.
1
1031
Guest
These % differences confuse me (hold the jokes please). Are they degrees of difference? Are they numbers of little differences? How are they measured? What is considered to be a difference and how is percentage allocated?
Would I even be able to understand the explanation?
Why is that the chosen (minimum?) range?
1
1031
Guest
can you point me to which pages they deal with attributing or explaining what constitutes a percentage difference and how they are weighed?
Page 2 and 3.
It's an opinion within the context of this argument. You either believe the differences are significant enough to warrant a classification or not. Which leads me to ask again, if we're not going to call it race, what do we call it?
It does. We can continue into the world of neurolinguistics if you want...
Why are we debating subspecies? Who said anything about subspecies. The word is defined as "a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits."
That the original definition of the word is factually correct and has biological basis.
Good morning, the sneaky fuck is back
You're asking the wrong questions. It doesn't matter how significant the differences are, if you are using group averages, it cannot prove a physical classification, as it has zero reflection on the individual members of the group.
You're using statistics from when? Now?Good morning, the sneaky fuck is back
You're asking the wrong questions. It doesn't matter how significant the differences are, if you are using group averages, it cannot prove a physical classification, as it has zero reflection on the individual members of the group.
Let's use statistics from 12,000 years ago, for the sake of the argument...
I'm not using any stats. But sure, feel free. Present whatever stats you like and we'll discuss them.
I like that you have a constitution. Despite having your arguments shredded, you're going to keep pushing until you find a way to be right, even if it includes numerous logical fallacies. Here's a hint: if you want to be right, join the "confused, flat earthers"
1
1031
Guest
The Human F value and Nm values as described, sadly answer my question as to whether I'd be able to understand the explanation or, that doesn't answer my earlier questions. Thanks for trying though, I appreciate the link.
I really get the impression this is all down to how we interpret or understand terms and meanings.
.
Your side of the argument relies on statistics to make its primary point. But it's a cherry-pick and fails to account for every potential identifying classification. How do you explain neurolinguistics as not being a biological classification?