User Controls
Race is a social construct
-
2021-02-28 at 2:05 AM UTCedited for privacy
-
2021-02-28 at 3:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀rabbitweed ⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀ youre a brave little geriatric
youll shut your dementia infested gob stopper before i ram my asshole onto your cock so hard that when you blow your load it pops my eyeballs out like krozs when he gets buttstuffed by his mexican uncles.
come to think of it, im going to invide krozs uncles to join in for the poody plundering party
Shut the fuck up faggot -
2021-02-28 at 7:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by Joseph R. Biden Jr, 46th President of the United States of America Among different nonrandomly selected populations you will find some differences, because that is what happens statistically and is tautologically true. Africa has more genetic diversity than all non African groups. Not all Africans are just super fast Usain Bolts. They have the highest level for their outliers and their medians are *slightly* higher when controlling for age, height and fitness. What that means is that there's not an unreasonable chance any African back selected at random will be slower than any white European selected at random. There's just a somewhat higher chance of the opposite. There are literally hundreds of millions of Africans slower than hundreds of millions of whites. So why would you stributento the entire race that has been socially designated as black?
I didnt say all blacks are better track runners, i just forgot the exact region the award winning sprinters came from. is it fair to say that kenyans on average would outrun non-kenyans? if so, they have a biological advantage.
i only listed differences i could think off the top of my head, i avoided subjective things like IQ but all these differences are fairly consistent and not statistical noise like you claim. how is it that ALL native americans never lose their hair? with chinese people you at least have a few exceptions. this is a pattern, not some tautological coincidence. if you split up white people into hexagons, some will have 40% experiencing baldness some will have 70% but if you split up native americans, it will remain 0%See above, you are retarded. Certain subsets of the population can develop it and they only HAPPEN to affect a subset of people who belong to another set. It has nothing to do with the fact that they belong to the other set.
Imagine if a virus broke out that caused acne to appear on anyone infected by it. Imagine of this virus breaks out in a small village in China, is quickly contained and a vaccine is found. However the acne doesn't go away if you were already infected.
In this thought experiment, all victims of the virus happen to be Chinese. All folk with permanent viral acne scars are Chinese. No people who are not Chinese are affected by it. It doesn't mean it has anything to do with them being Chinese. Millions of other Chinese Pele were never and will never be affected by it, because the set of Chinese only coincidentally has an exclusive overlap with the set of acne victims.
so basically youre saying biology is inherently incidental? this doesnt support the social construct theory. we shared a common ancestor with all animals at one point and things just happened that split us up into different evolutionary directions. your pet dog looking different than you and not being able to speak english is just as incidental as kenyans being able to run faster than you or native americans keeping their hair.It has nothing to do with the fact that you chose to call Chief Spotted Crow a native American. Chief's 1/64th great great great whatever great granddaughter might still have his amazing hair genes despite havimg 63/64th bald white Irish genes.
it doesnt matter what you call his race, his genes make his follicles superior to yours. -
2021-02-28 at 11:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by Kev I didnt say all blacks are better track runners, i just forgot the exact region the award winning sprinters came from.
You are just totally wrong and this is a great example why.
1. You are looking at a case of literal outliers, I am talking like <0.0001% of the population, we are talking international pro track rumners.
2. Yeah you mean a specific Kenyan tribe, the Kalenjin, a specific group of genetic outliers and literally no other black people. Suddenly all blacks are speedy Gonzales. There are over 5 million Kalenjin but they are themselves a minority in their country let alone their continent.
They are just another cluster of Africa's extreme genetic diversity. Most other Africans share nothing if these genes.is it fair to say that kenyans on average would outrun non-kenyans? if so, they have a biological advantage.
No, this is an excellent example of why your entire paradigm of thinking is fundamentally flawed.
1. Imagine comparing 2 countries, one where people are generally obese because they have an extremely high standard of living, and another that has relatively healthy citizens of normal weight. We can easily account for the difference without any viable genetic explanation. You haven't even begun to control for the factors that would confound such a conclusion, you just want to ram your conclusion in like a nonconsensual Króz rape cock.
2. Imagine there are 2 groups of 10 year old children and we are comparing their heights. However group 2 happens to have a freak of nature over 7 feet tall. Now on average (mean) there are a lot of things on paper you can say about group 2. You'd expect them to on average be able to jump higher. But you know that's not true for any given individual in group 2 except one specific one.i only listed differences i could think off the top of my head, i avoided subjective things like IQ but all these differences are fairly consistent and not statistical noise like you claim.
I never claimed it was "statistical noise", quite the opposite in fact if you learnt to read. I said it is perfectly possible to find differences between groups. That doesn't mean those groupings are inherently meaningful and define a "race". For example if you create a grouping of those specific Kenyan tribespeople Vs all Kenyans not from that tribe, you will literally find a gigantic difference in running as bility. Are those Kenyan tribespeople a brand-new "race" of super Kenyans or will you just keep considering them... A tribe with a particular genetic feature?how is it that ALL native americans never lose their hair? with chinese people you at least have a few exceptions. this is a pattern, not some tautological coincidence.
1. Please you fucking retard at least Google the words you don't completely understand. A tautology isn't a coincidence, it is trivially and necessarily true and the opposite of a coincidence.
2. How is it that all Kalenjin have more fast twitch muscle fibres than other Kenyans? Doesn't this mean the Kalrnjin are a new race of Kenyan?
No of course not. Just because there are differences between some groups doesn't mean they're a new "race".if you split up white people into hexagons, some will have 40% experiencing baldness some will have 70% but if you split up native americans, it will remain 0%
See above for Kalenjin runners and other Kenyans.so basically youre saying biology is inherently incidental? this doesnt support the social construct theory. we shared a common ancestor with all animals at one point and things just happened that split us up into different evolutionary directions. your pet dog looking different than you and not being able to speak english is just as incidental as kenyans being able to run faster than you or native americans keeping their hair.
So basically you just refuse to read or understand shit properly and instead just blatantly strawman with transparently retarded questions?
Worthless grandstanding paragraph of illiteracy and retardation, why did you even bother to type this?it doesnt matter what you call his race, his genes make his follicles superior to yours.
Ok Kalenjin tribesmen are a superior race of super Kenyans with higher density of fast twitch muscle fibres. They are not black, they're a new race. -
2021-02-28 at 1:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by Joseph R. Biden Jr, 46th President of the United States of America What's so bizarre about it? Chinese village gets it. Chinese government immediately catches it and prevents it from spreading and realizes they can easily create a vaccine.
We can easily assume all these things for the sake of the hypothetical because they are ancillary details means to expedite setting up the analogy.
The point is simple as fuck and I am explaining it to a deck of retards.
Kill yourself. You are straight up the dumbest, most retarded faggot to consistently post on the forum, add literally nothing to any discussion except being a bad faith faggot cheerleader.
why would chinese government spend millions to develope a vaccine for a rural village when it can spend 1/10000 of that by just cordoning the village off and quarantine the whole area ?
this is what happens when low iq neanderthalic rohingya watch too many MSM and suddenly imagines himself as an "expert" epidemiologist cum virologist.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-02-28 at 2:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny why would chinese government spend millions to develope a vaccine for a rural village when it can spend 1/10000 of that by just cordoning the village off and quarantine the whole area ?
this is what happens when low iq neanderthalic rohingya watch too many MSM and suddenly imagines himself as an "expert" epidemiologist cum virologist.
Mongoloid^ -
2021-02-28 at 3:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny why would chinese government spend millions to develope a vaccine for a rural village when it can spend 1/10000 of that by just cordoning the village off and quarantine the whole area ?
this is what happens when low iq neanderthalic rohingya watch too many MSM and suddenly imagines himself as an "expert" epidemiologist cum virologist.
I'm sure he has some economic reason no one else can understand to explain. -
2021-02-28 at 4:35 PM UTC
-
2021-02-28 at 4:36 PM UTC
-
2021-02-28 at 4:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump Apparently only you have the correct type of intelligence to understand what you're on about.
Nah you specifically just don't have the requisite intelligence. In fact you need to build up from the level of Hooked On Phonics so you aren't quite so illiterate to begin with.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-02-28 at 5:03 PM UTC
-
2021-02-28 at 7:52 PM UTCedited for privacyThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-02-28 at 10:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by netstat it makes more sense to me to just use the term populations when talking about genetic differences since although the socially constructed racial groupings do sort of map onto populations that were separate enough for long enough to have evolved both new gene variants and significant differences in standing gene variants ie. 'white' basically refers to populations that migrated out of africa and into europe, 'asians' to populations that migrated out of africa and into asia, amerindians to populations that migrated out of asia and into NA, australian pygmies to very early migrants out of africa, etc., they're not specific enough terms and ignore a lot of mixing and selection, eg. the height differences between northern and southern europeans caused by elevated frequencies of height associated alleles https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.2368
i guess some people would call northern and southern euros different races, but it's not a biological term so doesn't make sense to use when talking about genetics and biology
main thing i take issue with in these sorts of discussions is when ideologically motivated people correctly point out that race is a social construct - racial groupings were constructed based on phenotypes for social purposes so there's no good argument against this, even if you want to argue that race has biological significance it's still socially constructed - but use this to try to smuggle in the idea that there can be no significant genetic differences between populations which is obviously wrong for all sorts of reasons and easily disproven by research like what i linked above. doesn't seem like OP is doing this and i don't have any serious issues with his post
Yeah I'm pretty much always rightThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-03-02 at 4:45 AM UTC
-
2021-03-02 at 1:14 PM UTC
-
2021-03-02 at 2:47 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-03-02 at 2:53 PM UTC
-
2021-03-02 at 3:18 PM UTC
-
2021-03-02 at 4:14 PM UTCMuh degree
-
2021-03-02 at 5:12 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
