Because it exists. If you want to disprove it you'll have to do more than call me absurd.
Race discussion with Big.Thirsty
- Thread starter Leigh
- Start date
Go back and read my answer 10 pages back. You're either skipping over my points or failing to consider them.
I just said that language can be shared between races and differ within a race. That is why your argument is absurd.
You didn't list the immunological differences 10 pages back. You're just flat out making shit up now.
And I said no shit. We have brains. We can learn new concepts and apply them. But the fact the languages exist is evidence of our biological separation.
We came up with totally different sounds that mean the same thing. This is physical science whether you like it or not.
Because you're the only one looking for a list. I gave you one example that totally shut down your argument. I'm not going back to look for it. That's your job.
If you took biologically identical people and separated them, I would expect their language to differ.
No, I refuted it.
Then you agree with my perspective. But you won't admit it for some reason.
P
Punch
Guest
Just because Grunty McGruntface said "Ah!" when Seamus MacMushmouth said "Ooh!" doesn't prove your point.
lol
Why does the Samoan lady look so different when compared to the Latvian lady?
And if you put them in a room with no explanation, and they spoke two different languages, how confused do you think they'd be?
Your perspective is that biologically identical people can develop different languages and that indicates that they are biologically different.
Ok, I'm losing the will to live.
- No black Irish people
- A big head means you are a different race
- Speaking a different language indicates biological difference
Why does the Latvian lady look so different when compared to another Latvian lady?
My refutation doesn't mean I'm offended, before you make that strawman.
Those aren't real people. You're resorting to made up pictures for evidence. It's pathetic now.
The definition you posted back about race said physically distinct. Which had proven not to be true.
Try to find me one.
You're being factitious again to defend your point.
It does. Much less relevant now, but was a clear indicator some thousands of years ago.
It said physical differences. Not physically distinct.
It's an aggregate photo dude. Don't play dumb.
You're trying to tell me this lady is born of Irish descent?
We went through this. Averaging a diverse group of people doesn't prove they are distinct.
How about when I referenced the totality of a people's immune system?