She was born in Ireland
Race discussion with Big.Thirsty
- Thread starter Leigh
- Start date
How about it?
That has nothing to do with race.
That's where you lost the argument. How many more pages do we need to go for you to admit that?
Now that's an interesting concept. I don't know anything about that theory, but the fact we're still around and dinosaurs aren't kinda blows my mind.
She's black and Irish, as requested
LOL nonsense. You danced around, refusing to give specifics, other than to say that North Sentinal islanders are more susceptible to some diseases. Lots of people have immunodeficiency. Half of Africa suddenly became Sentalise under your definition.
This is childish shit. You know what I meant and are being flippant. Find me two pale ass Irish folks who produced a dark-skinned kid.
If you can't see how that's a perfect example, then you are 100% blind to fact-based argumentation. You keep wanting to argue theory.
Selective breeding is not proof of race physically distinct or definitive.
Selective breeding is what causes the "similarities" you're calling race. But those similarities are not definitive or distinct. The percent that share those traits just aren't close to night enough.
If every "race" comes from a singular set if ancestors which is the current theory, that's indicative of us being one race.
Adapting to surroundings and having those with the best physical attributes to survive their surroundings breed with each other is also not indicative with race. People on the other side of planet adapted to share those same similarities.
Not to mention all the travel and cross breeding further mudding all those traits up.
If we all come from a common set of ancestors and have way more in common then not. We are all one race adapting to where we live. There's nothing that seperates us definitively.
To say that the selective breeding and adapting caused definitive races physically or genetically especially when those things are constantly changing is simply disingenuous.
I like guy man but it seems you're being obstinant.
My refutation of your poor arguments does not make me flippant.
Your example doesn't prove anything. Find me two 4 foot tall people who produced a 7 foot tall son. Being a midget isn't racial. Two parents won't produce genetically different offspring, whatever their races are.
I very clearly refuted it. Your ad hominems don't change that.
It's 1am, I'm going to bed. I'll continue to thrash you tomorrow if you post more drivel.
I'm not trying to rationalize why it happened. I'm trying to say that the word as defined in the 1500s was factually correct and had a biological basis. Nobody has refuted this point.
Seems to me that everyone is euphemizing my words to expand their meaning. My stance is the entire argument is foolish, inherently racist and serves to only further divide.
And I'll eagerly await for you to find me a full-blooded Irishman who was born more dark than pale.
By the way, I meant to say this before but forgot,
BigThirsty's argument was incorrect too. He was arguing that there was a specific set of classifications. The original definition did not mention specific classifications.
This thread as originally intended was a giant mistake.
BigThirsty's argument was incorrect too. He was arguing that there was a specific set of classifications. The original definition did not mention specific classifications.
This thread as originally intended was a giant mistake.
I won't pretend to have my own personal standards, I defer to the relevant scientists (not social, real ones) - if they say they can determine with a preponderance of the evidence (and the more recent being more voluminous) that settles it for me when trying to square their ideas with the abstract philosophical stance of the social 'science' detractors and/or the decades old hard science they are actively refuting through progress (whose work I am happy to peruse if you can reference any you sought out when you were converted to the darkside)
The argument from authority won't fly with me.
If you are looking at that picture taking away its a 'facial' comparison I suggest you look again - thats a skull comparison
^ Now even
@KWingJitsu can get a kick out of that joke. 
@KWingJitsu can get a kick out of that joke.
No it isn't, it's a facial comparison. I suggest you look again at the post you quoted.
Interesting, because your position is 1:1 with the genetic science of 30 years ago (and past/present social science).
Like someone says 'I side with modern geneticists on the topic of race and genetics'
...and you are like "HA! That is an appeal to authority logical fallacy...BURN!'
That's not how these things work Leigh
Yes it is. That is exactly how these things work and exactly how science works. Evidence is required, not titles.Interesting, because your position is 1:1 with the genetic science of 30 years ago (and past/present social science).
Like someone says 'I side with modern geneticists on the topic of race and genetics'
...and you are like "HA! That is an appeal to authority logical fallacy...BURN!'
That's not how these things work Leigh
These geneticists may well have good evidence but it hasn't been provided on this thread, only poor arguments and admittance of a lack iyf understanding of the position being argued.
Yes, lol
we have failed to provide you with your standard of evidence, which no one ever suggested existed (see last hours conversation)...
you are self-defining the standard and then declaring victory (a million times) because no one met your standard.
P
Punch
Guest
No, asking for evidence and then pointing out said evidence is insufficient is not a declaration of "victory".
It's a declaration of the terms required, no one agreed.
hence I said 'self-defining the standard'. He is repeating ad nauseam the need to be provided 'definitive and exclusive' (100%) the descriptors of races, no one suggested that existed, he then declares victory when it is not provided, he has done this throughout the entire thread and that is not a subjective stance really, its plain to see that occured