Race discussion with Big.Thirsty

[Punch]

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

That's some pretty hardcore mental gymnastics.

 

[DFW4L]

That's some pretty hardcore mental gymnastics.

Here...

simpler version:

He said X = standard

No one agreed

He repeated X = standard

I stated why I don't even believe X (hence it can not be the standard)

He then said 'I WIN!' (x100)

 

[Punch]

Here...

simpler version:

He said X = standard

No one agreed

He repeated X = standard

I stated why I don't even believe X (hence it can not be the standard)

He then said 'I WIN!' (x100)

Again, that is not what happened.

 

[DFW4L]

Again, that is not what happened.

Source

 

[Punch]

Source

Posting this thread does not affirm your incorrect assertation.

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

Whats the actual point of this discussion? I think we all agree that race doesnt exist, Iscrible and DFW agree with this they just want a new term to apply to people you can group by common (and exclusive) genetics, for which Im sure one already exists

 

[IschKabibble]

Whats the actual point of this discussion? I think we all agree that race doesnt exist, Iscrible and DFW agree with this they just want a new term to apply to people you can group by common (and exclusive) genetics, for which Im sure one already exists

You are easily 10x more racist than me. Give me a break.

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

You are easily 10x more racist than me. Give me a break.

That has nothing to do with what you're replying to.

 

[IschKabibble]

That has nothing to do with what you're replying to.

Sure it does.

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

Sure it does.

No it doesn't

 

[IschKabibble]

Whats the actual point of this discussion? I think we all agree that race doesnt exist, Iscrible and DFW agree with this they just want a new term to apply to people you can group by common (and exclusive) genetics, for which Im sure one already exists

I never petitioned for a new word. I posed a hypothetical that disproves the argument.

 

[IschKabibble]

And you're racist as fuck. Everyone on the forum knows this.

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

I never petitioned for a new word. I posed a hypothetical that disproves the argument.

So do you disagree with me in that race is a social construct? Yes or no will do please.

 

[IschKabibble]

So do you disagree with me in that race is a social construct? Yes or no will do please.

God damnit. Let me go find my definitive conclusion...

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

God damnit. Let me go find my definitive conclusion...

Yes or no.

 

[IschKabibble]

You can't just say "that's not proof." That's not how this works. I'm only here to apply sound logic.

I don't give a fuck for the conversation. This is to sharpen Leigh's mind a bit. Because I remember reading that this is an issue for him that spans multiple years and multiple forums. That's ridiculous. How much longer will we struggle to be objective about race as it applies to our history?

Is race a social construct? Yes.

Is it just a social construct? No.

I have proven that irrefutably in this thread.

 

[IschKabibble]

Yes or no.

See above.

 

[IschKabibble]

The argument as posed in the OP is unwinnable. I however successfully cleaned it up.

Up to you on how long that takes to sink in.

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

See above.

The bottom line is that aside from a few iconoclasts, most physical anthropologists (that is, people whose job it is to study human evolution, prehistorical human migrations, race, and race-linked biological issues) find that is very difficult to talk about race; as a result, they prefer to use more useful and descriptive technical terms like populations, lineages, clusters, haplotypes, and genotypes.

 

[Lord Vutulaki]

/thread


To the dump we go....

 

[Leigh]

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.

LOL @ this bollocks and attack on my arguing style.

If you believe something is real, you must be able to describe what it is. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. How can I logically debate you if you can even put a logical argument together?

Your whole argument is that some scientists have a stance and you can't explain it. You want me to read a load of articles but I don't need to check your sources if you can't even explain your stance.

In summary, you're making an appeal to authority, I'm saying that's insufficient and you're having a tantrum.

 

[Leigh]

You are easily 10x more racist than me. Give me a break.

You're the guy who says that focusing on appearance is racist...and then focuses on appearance.