Race discussion with Big.Thirsty

[Leigh]

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.
.

On this thread so far, every interpretation that tries to classify a race has debunked.

 

[Leigh]

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?

What stats have I relied on?

 

[IschKabibble]

What stats have I relied on?

You never answer the questions I pose. I think I'm gonna go back and compile them all and try to bail out of this thread.

 

[Leigh]

You never answer the questions I pose. I think I'm gonna go back and compile them all and try to bail out of this thread.

Ok

 

[1031]

On this thread so far, every interpretation that tries to classify a race has debunked.

Debunk? Do you mean dismissed?
Fair enough, but again, if this conversation were to occur in another language, we could well see better terms being used.
As much as language can be used to specify, it may also be used to obfuscate. Quantifying what we mean with some words seems beyond our collective ability and it's becoming more than a bit silly.

Differences exist, they are shared among ethnic populations separated by geography (yes I know "separated by geography" can't be quantified and it only gets more ridiculous as we continue) and how a person wants to classify that isn't up to me.

 

[Leigh]

Debunk? Do you mean dismissed?
Fair enough, but again, if this conversation were to occur in another language, we could well see better terms being used.
As much as language can be used to specify, it may also be used to obfuscate. Quantifying what we mean with some words seems beyond our collective ability and it's becoming more than a bit silly.

No, this is not a semantic argument with language barriers.

Differences exist, they are shared among ethnic populations separated by geography (yes I know "separated by geography" can't be quantified and it only gets more ridiculous as we continue) and how a person wants to classify that isn't up to me.

This is incorrect. You are fundamentally and categorically wrong. Not a personal attack but a factual statement; there are differences between people in general (obviously) but they are no traits that are exclusive to, and shared between, a "race".

 

[1031]

but they are no traits that are exclusive to a "race".

did I say otherwise?

No, this is not a semantic argument with language barriers.

This is incorrect. You are fundamentally and categorically wrong. Not a personal attack but a factual statement; there are differences in the inherent meanings different people attribute to different words. You are at the point now where this all comes down to how one interprets the words that interpret data, which of course depends on conclusions and interpretations, etc, etc. If you know another language then you know that ideas are expressed differently in other languages and seeing as language controls how we express ourselves you'll just have to accept that you're part of this clusterfuck, welcome to the club.

This is incorrect. You are fundamentally and categorically wrong.

Sigh....Leigh, think of it this way:
Do people in the same family look alike?
Can traits and physical characteristics and tendencies be traced within a family tree?
Do a little projection on that and try to imagine there was a period of time in which human migration was much more restricted. It's that simple.

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

did I say otherwise?

This is incorrect. You are fundamentally and categorically wrong. Not a personal attack but a factual statement; there are differences in the inherent meanings different people attribute to different words. You are at the point now where this all comes down to how one interprets the words that interpret data, which of course depends on conclusions and interpretations, etc, etc. If you know another language then you know that ideas are expressed differently in other languages and seeing as language controls how we express ourselves you'll just have to accept that you're part of this clusterfuck, welcome to the club.


Sigh....Leigh, think of it this way:
Do people in the same family look alike?
Can traits and physical characteristics and tendencies be traced within a family tree?
Do a little projection on that and try to imagine there was a period of time in which human migration was much more restricted. It's that simple.

Define race.. Lets start again. Define what race means to you today, not in the traditional sense.

 

[Leigh]

This is incorrect. You are fundamentally and categorically wrong. Not a personal attack but a factual statement; there are differences in the inherent meanings different people attribute to different words. You are at the point now where this all comes down to how one interprets the words that interpret data, which of course depends on conclusions and interpretations, etc, etc. If you know another language then you know that ideas are expressed differently in other languages and seeing as language controls how we express ourselves you'll just have to accept that you're part of this clusterfuck, welcome to the club.

You're wrong. People can interpret things differently but THIS argument is not semantic. 1+1=2 is not open to interpretation.

did I say otherwise?

Yes, you did. Right here:

Differences exist, they are shared among ethnic populations

Sigh....Leigh, think of it this way:
Do people in the same family look alike?
Can traits and physical characteristics and tendencies be traced within a family tree?
Do a little projection on that and try to imagine there was a period of time in which human migration was much more restricted. It's that simple.

No it's not that simple. Not everyone in a family necessarily looks the same. My brother is fat with lighter skin than me. He received our mother's eye colour and I received our father's. My son is 100% biologically mine (I had a DNA test ) yet he has fair hair and blue eyes.

There are genetic variations, even with siblings (aside from identical twins). A whole family may share some traits and that might even be shared with some other members of their geological social group but unless they are shared by every member of the group AND they are not shared with people outside of that group, they are not physically distinct.

 

[1031]

Define race.. Lets start again. Define what race means to you today, not in the traditional sense.

dude, I think I wrote it a few times already, I lean more towards Kirik's way of looking at things i.e. ethnicity as opposed to race.
It's not up to me to define.
Maybe you can tell a Hutu apart from a Tutsi, maybe you can't but they can. What do you want me to do about it?

 

[Leigh]

dude, I think I wrote it a few times already, I lean more towards Kirik's way of looking at things i.e. ethnicity as opposed to race.
It's not up to me to define.
Maybe you can tell a Hutu apart from a Tutsi, maybe you can't but they can. What do you want me to do about it?

Well we've gone full circle. You claim race is distinct and that you can tell groups apart but you are unable or unwilling to demonstrate it. Fair enough, you're entitled to your views.

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

dude, I think I wrote it a few times already, I lean more towards Kirik's way of looking at things i.e. ethnicity as opposed to race.
It's not up to me to define.
Maybe you can tell a Hutu apart from a Tutsi, maybe you can't but they can. What do you want me to do about it?

I am Kirk lol Hutu and Tutsi can tell each other apart by dress and other custom thats about it.

Here's what Im saying a "negro" is someone who originates from Africa, has dark to medium dark skin, afro hair etc

That worked until they found Melanesians who have all those attributes except they arent from Africa nor do they share any common genetic markers with Africans. They just look the same based on our socially constructed idea of what a negro looks like.

 

[1031]

You're wrong. People can interpret things differently but THIS argument is not semantic. 1+1=2 is not open to interpretation.

You're wrong. The very fact we're using language and not numbers makes it semantic. Your use of numbers actually proves my point. Thank you.

Yes, you did. Right here:

"Differences exist, they are shared among ethnic populations separated by geography (yes I know "separated by geography" can't be quantified and it only gets more ridiculous as we continue) and how a person wants to classify that isn't up to me."

So you interpret those words to be the same as me claiming race definitely exists? I don't know what to tell you except to keep working on that interpretation. :/

Not everyone in a family necessarily looks the same.

I didn't write that. I used the words "look alike."

unless they are shared by every member of the group AND they are not shared with people outside of that group, they are not physically distinct.

I know, I made no contrary claim to that.

 

[1031]

Well we've gone full circle. You claim race is distinct and that you can tell groups apart but you are unable or unwilling to demonstrate it. Fair enough, you're entitled to your views.

No, I haven't claimed much at all about race. You've got me confused with someone else.

 

[1031]

I am Kirk lol Hutu and Tutsi can tell each other apart by dress and other custom thats about it.

No, that's not true.
Yes you are Kirk (clever you).

 

[1031]

That worked until they found Melanesians who have all those attributes except they arent from Africa nor do they share any common genetic markers with Africans. They just look the same based on our socially constructed idea of what a negro looks like.

So? If you have two groups of people who carry different genetic markers then you have two different groups of people. So now you have different ethnicities or maybe call it something else. They may look alike but not "the same" as that would require them to look identical or are we now dealing with a different meaning of "same?"

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

No, that's not true.
Yes you are Kirk (clever you).

No, that's not true.
Yes you are Kirk (clever you).

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

So? If you have two groups of people who carry different genetic markers then you have two different groups of people. So now you have different ethnicities or maybe call it something else. They may look alike but not "the same" as that would require them to look identical or are we now dealing with a different meaning of "same?"

Can you please rephrase that? For my benefit, normal people probably understand you but dumb it down for me please

 

[Leigh]

No, I haven't claimed much at all about race. You've got me confused with someone else.

You claimed some groups look different to other groups.

You're wrong. The very fact we're using language and not numbers makes it semantic. Your use of numbers actually proves my point. Thank you.

"Differences exist, they are shared among ethnic populations separated by geography (yes I know "separated by geography" can't be quantified and it only gets more ridiculous as we continue) and how a person wants to classify that isn't up to me."

So you interpret those words to be the same as me claiming race definitely exists? I don't know what to tell you except to keep working on that interpretation. :/

I didn't write that. I used the words "look alike."

I know, I made no contrary claim to that.

No I'm not. You're trying to make this into a language issue when it's not.

The moon is real.
Superman is not a real person.
Black paint is not white.

These are facts and not open to interpretation.

In any case, I'm not going off topic any further with the language discussion. Do that with someone else on a different thread. My position is that race is not physically real. If you want to address that, go ahead.

 

[1031]

Can you please rephrase that? For my benefit, normal people probably understand you but dumb it down for me please

It's me basically saying "Okay, you've provided an example of two different groups having different genetic markers. Sounds like you've got two different ethnicities, what's your point?"

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

It's me basically saying "Okay, you've provided an example of two different groups having different genetic markers. Sounds like you've got two different ethnicities, what's your point?"

Point is they arent the same "race"

 

[Leigh]

unless they are shared by every member of the group AND they are not shared with people outside of that group, they are not physically distinct.

I know, I made no contrary claim to that.

Well, you HAVE claimed that groups are physically distinct. But I'm glad you now agree they are not.

 

[1031]

You claimed some groups look different to other groups.

So what? I didn't use the word "race."

No I'm not. You're trying to make this into a language issue when it's not.

It most definitely is and you are as guilty as anyone of us is and YOU KNOW IT.

The moon is real.
Superman is not a real person.
Black paint is not white.

These are facts and not open to interpretation.

So what?

 

[1031]

Well, you HAVE claimed that groups are physically distinct. But I'm glad you now agree they are not.

I didn't write that either. You clearly interpret the word "group" to a different degree and therein lies the kernel of the language problem. You are incapable of admitting it but it's now clear for anyone to read.

 

[1031]

Point is they arent the same "race"

I never said they were.