P
Punch
Guest
I'm busting your balls homie.
Race discussion with Big.Thirsty
- Thread starter Leigh
- Start date
M
member 1013
Guest
this isnt being smart like i would be
lol good luck with that . i predict 100 pages
I know, I know. But when I get my mind stuck on an argument that I feel isn't logical, I have to explore it until it makes sense. That's where the stubborn part comes into play.I'm busting your balls homie.
Smart people would be discussing how great Celine Dion is and how she can easily be considered the best female vocalist of all time.
But instead we're here talking about the modern implications of racism.
M
member 1013
Guest
lol. I didn't. But I'm fascinated with Celine Dion history. You should share what you know in the thread!
I'm also very interested in that toilet seat you mentioned...
P
Punch
Guest
You gtfo of here with celine dion, peckerwood.
Now he's catching on!
M
member 1013
Guest
when her husband died she was sad
I get it. Those Chinese people look different. Africans have dark skin, whereas Europeans have fair skin. Intuitively they must be separate, right?
But they're not and that has been demonstrated. It's no longer stubbornness, it's willful ignorance; defiance in the face of logic.
But you're smarter than this so I must assume you are now trolling.
Let me try to put an end to this thread.
There is no precise demarcation/delineation between ethnic groups, as humans have been migrating and moving around the globe for a long time.
If we feed genomic data from thousands of people from all over the world, and we use algorithms to find relatedness or to build trees or to find patterns of genetic variation, sure we will get clusters that show that genetics mimic geography to a large extent but.....
This doesnt mean shit really because as the great Italian human population geneticist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza reminds us, if we feed one of these programs genomic data from people in neighboring tiny Tuscan towns, they will pick up genetic differences between the inhabitants of neighboring towns Sienna and Florence, those inhabiting these towns are Italian/white/Caucasian but the same method you are trying to employ to differentiate between black and white people will differentiate between VERY closely related groups within those groups.
It's also pretty fucking hard to minimize the importance of race as a social construct when Barack Obama will be forever know as the first US black president when genetically speaking he is as much white as he is black. The fact that everyone perceives Mr. Obama as black speaks volumes as to the importance of allelic frequencies in this debate: for intents and purposes absolutely fucking zero.
Here's a great explanation using Richard Lewontin's genetic analysis some 30+ years ago, we have come leaps and bounds since then but this is what every geneticist who Ive read uses to explain it to the laymen like you and I.
"Imagine that some nuclear nightmare wiped out the entire human race apart from one small population – say, the Masai tribe in East Africa. Almost all the genetic variation that exists in the world today would still be present in that one small group. That is a dramatic way of expressing the results of a landmark analysis conducted by the geneticist Richard Lewontin in 1972. Lewontin showed that virtually the entire range of human differences – 85 per cent – occurred between individuals within single populations. A further 7 per cent differentiated between populations within a race. Only 8 per cent of total variation distinguished what we call the major races.
Since 1972 other researchers have confirmed that 85 per cent of variation exists within a population. The results of a 2002 study by Noah Rosenberg and his colleagues were even more striking. They showed that differences among individuals account for a staggering 93-95 percent of all genetic variation. About 2 per cent is taken up by differences between populations within a race. And race accounts for just 3-5 per cent of all human difference. The study also found that almost half of the alleles appeared in every major population in the world. Only 7.4 per cent of alleles were exclusive to one region, and such alleles tended to be very rare. Rosenberg’s study is the largest of its kind and hence the figures are likely to be the most accurate."
There is no precise demarcation/delineation between ethnic groups, as humans have been migrating and moving around the globe for a long time.
If we feed genomic data from thousands of people from all over the world, and we use algorithms to find relatedness or to build trees or to find patterns of genetic variation, sure we will get clusters that show that genetics mimic geography to a large extent but.....
This doesnt mean shit really because as the great Italian human population geneticist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza reminds us, if we feed one of these programs genomic data from people in neighboring tiny Tuscan towns, they will pick up genetic differences between the inhabitants of neighboring towns Sienna and Florence, those inhabiting these towns are Italian/white/Caucasian but the same method you are trying to employ to differentiate between black and white people will differentiate between VERY closely related groups within those groups.
It's also pretty fucking hard to minimize the importance of race as a social construct when Barack Obama will be forever know as the first US black president when genetically speaking he is as much white as he is black. The fact that everyone perceives Mr. Obama as black speaks volumes as to the importance of allelic frequencies in this debate: for intents and purposes absolutely fucking zero.
Here's a great explanation using Richard Lewontin's genetic analysis some 30+ years ago, we have come leaps and bounds since then but this is what every geneticist who Ive read uses to explain it to the laymen like you and I.
"Imagine that some nuclear nightmare wiped out the entire human race apart from one small population – say, the Masai tribe in East Africa. Almost all the genetic variation that exists in the world today would still be present in that one small group. That is a dramatic way of expressing the results of a landmark analysis conducted by the geneticist Richard Lewontin in 1972. Lewontin showed that virtually the entire range of human differences – 85 per cent – occurred between individuals within single populations. A further 7 per cent differentiated between populations within a race. Only 8 per cent of total variation distinguished what we call the major races.
Since 1972 other researchers have confirmed that 85 per cent of variation exists within a population. The results of a 2002 study by Noah Rosenberg and his colleagues were even more striking. They showed that differences among individuals account for a staggering 93-95 percent of all genetic variation. About 2 per cent is taken up by differences between populations within a race. And race accounts for just 3-5 per cent of all human difference. The study also found that almost half of the alleles appeared in every major population in the world. Only 7.4 per cent of alleles were exclusive to one region, and such alleles tended to be very rare. Rosenberg’s study is the largest of its kind and hence the figures are likely to be the most accurate."
Yeah, it doesn't matter macro, matters micro. Like sleeping bags in winter.
Thats 100 retarded posts in a row Galt, yes I counted, one more and youre joining your mate
I'm in the process of getting kicked out, cut me some slack wanker.
So you focus on appearance and call me ignorant? That's why your side of the argument is inherently racist.
Nobody refuted the immune system differences I pointed out here. How are you going to ignore that as biological separation of a peoples?
I promise I'm not the one being ignorant here.
Bro why not make "I get sunburned but vutu doesnt" cornerstone of your theory?
Sentinel Islanders and cholera bro? really?
It's that simple mate. A physical separation of peoples. What the fuck are you not getting about the concept of race? I couldn't have spelled it out any clearer.
Eskimos have trichinellosis or a limited lower intestinal immunity to bacteria, this is due to them living in areas bacteria dont exactly thrive IIRC
Does this make them a different "race" to native americans from the south? Im pretty sure your 1800's books on anthropology has them grouped into one group IE Mongoloids.
My daughter wasnt exposed to much dirt as a baby cause she's our first born and also a girl, my son was thrown in the dirt to fend for himself.
Guess which one gets sick 100 x more often every winter? Are they the "same race"?
Okay. I get it man.
Nobody answered the most important question though except
@Kneeblock, and that proved my point. It's word play and revisiting of definitions within social context while ignoring original meaning. Two times my points became uncontested it turned into a personal attack.
Nobody answered the most important question though except
@Kneeblock, and that proved my point. It's word play and revisiting of definitions within social context while ignoring original meaning. Two times my points became uncontested it turned into a personal attack.
Okay. I get it man.
Nobody answered the most important question though except
Dont be like that mate. I never attacked you. Sorry if I came across that way I really am
Okay. I get it man.
Nobody answered the most important question though except
Okay so according to Wiki by the 19th century the term race meant differentiated human groups defined by phenotype
East and West Africans have different phenotypes so we just split blacks/negros into two groups, we can then further distill those two groups down further by phenotype until the term "race" loses all scientific significance
Or you could think macro, like soros.