User Controls
Ann Coulter Fires Back at Trump: 'The Only National Emergency Is that Our President Is an Idiot'
-
2019-02-19 at 3:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING V: A Cat-Girl/Boy Under Every Bed Complex systems require judgements. If you aren't prepared to make judgements, then genetics don't define anything - human, dog, cat, etc. You can't define a company, or a house, or a computer, etc.
It obviously matters deeply to you that people not judge you.
No, complex systems require abstractions.
If you're walking down the street and there's a black guy walking past you, and you're scared because he is black, and people with black skin are overrepresented in crime stats, then we can have a conversation about that abstraction.
I just don't see why you tards so badly need to say that the same divisions can be clearly defined along genetic lines as well.
If that's true, show me the evidence.
But why would you need to be true? -
2019-02-19 at 3:44 PM UTCOh I looked up the coyote Vs dog Vs wolf thing.
They are all considered the species canis lupus.
Dogs are just a subspecies categorizes as canis lupus familiaris (before it was just canis familiarise).
So coyotes and dogs are considered one species. -
2019-02-19 at 3:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by Mahmoud If you're walking down the street and there's a black guy walking past you, and you're scared because he is black, and people with black skin are overrepresented in crime stats, then we can have a conversation about that abstraction.
What's black?
How dark do you have to be to be black?
What about albinos?
What's a street?
There is definition for the term street that accurately describes everything you would label with such a term.
What's a man?
Is a cat-boy a man?
Is a nenderthal a man?
What's a neanderthal?
What's what?
What?
Who? -
2019-02-19 at 3:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Mahmoud Oh I looked up the coyote Vs dog Vs wolf thing.
They are all considered the species canis lupus.
Dogs are just a subspecies categorizes as canis lupus familiaris (before it was just canis familiarise).
So coyotes and dogs are considered one species.
Coyotes aren't, dogs and wolves are which is why I had them together in my first post -
2019-02-19 at 4:28 PM UTC
-
2019-02-19 at 4:44 PM UTC
Bisch looks just like the skanky crack ho, I just saw on the corner.. Her pimp looked he was starving to.. I guess he'll learn to pick his whores better... -
2019-02-19 at 5:48 PM UTCFinally, back on topic...kinda.
-
2019-02-19 at 5:56 PM UTC
-
2019-02-19 at 6:16 PM UTC...to send me nekkid pictures of Rosie!
-
2019-02-19 at 7:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING V: A Cat-Girl/Boy Under Every Bed Then I can't make head nor tail of your post, and can't help but suspect it's intended to be deliberately confusing.
Race is a phenomenon of genetics, and if it didn't exist it would be created as it is useful for all sorts of things.
What I meant by my post is what I wrote in it, I don't see what's confusing here. Race is not a genetic concept in the same way beauty isn't. There is no beauty gene, it's a social standard. Your genetics affect your looks, no doubt, and we even have genetic predispositions to find some traits more beautiful than others. But many of our ideas about beauty change with time, they're socially constructed, and the same is true with race. What race-label we're assigned of course depends on what we look like, which is in turn decided by our genetics, but the assignment itself is generally arbitrary. As already pointed out, meaningful "natural" genetic groups exist and no one denies this, but they do not well align with our social notion of race.
You'd have an easier time understanding this if you could imagine that ideas like social construction of race might have merit other than as a jedi-plot carried out on a backwater internet forum by a whitey and paki. -
2019-02-19 at 7:23 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-02-19 at 7:34 PM UTCIād party with Ann
-
2019-02-19 at 7:35 PM UTC
-
2019-02-19 at 9:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny What I meant by my post is what I wrote in it, I don't see what's confusing here. Race is not a genetic concept in the same way beauty isn't. There is no beauty gene, it's a social standard. Your genetics affect your looks, no doubt, and we even have genetic predispositions to find some traits more beautiful than others. But many of our ideas about beauty change with time, they're socially constructed, and the same is true with race. What race-label we're assigned of course depends on what we look like, which is in turn decided by our genetics, but the assignment itself is generally arbitrary. As already pointed out, meaningful "natural" genetic groups exist and no one denies this, but they do not well align with our social notion of race.
You'd have an easier time understanding this if you could imagine that ideas like social construction of race might have merit other than as a jedi-plot carried out on a backwater internet forum by a whitey and paki.
So is there anything - outside of basic science and physical laws - that's not socially constructed, in your opinion?
Like is there anything in biology that's not socially constructed?
Even the statistical things, like race?
And even if something is socially constructed does that make it wrong/invalid?
Beauty is just a proxy for good health, and not something that is made up by the way. Same with basic observations about the world like "this group on this island looks different to the group on that island".
You guys really are just grasping at straws here, and seem to be looking for clever and weird rationalisations, semantic tricks and excuses to avoid confronting very simple, very basic realities about how the world works.
And if you think Mahmoud isn't 100% racist and on the side of his own race IRL you're in for a shock. -
2019-02-19 at 9:55 PM UTCZok is a nigger
-
2019-02-19 at 9:57 PM UTCAnthropology is pretty much completely fake and not taken seriously as a real science any more. I mean look up the jedi Franz Boas and his magic soil theory.
-
2019-02-19 at 10:01 PM UTCZok is a nigger
-
2019-02-19 at 10:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by omn5;pvl cultural anthropologists and sociologists, two disciplines where the median academic knows very little about genetics, are much more likely to disavow the race concept than physical anthros and biologists
really activates the almonds
Don't we live in a world with 23 and Me, polygenic analysis, and CRISPR?
Geneticists are finding SNPs that are linked to intelligence, aggression, time preference and other traits constantly.
And then establishing the origins and estimating the prevalences of those same SNPs in ancestral groups.
I mean what the fuck?
I'm actually embarrassed that this is even a discussion we are having. -
2019-02-19 at 10:13 PM UTC
-
2019-02-19 at 10:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by omn5;pvl let's take your most basic claim and see if it holds up
oops, turns out the scientific consensus is only in your mind
LOL
So:
- In 1984, the split was 73/15/12 amongst biologists.
- In 2001, the split was 45/55
Sick burn my man.
Right click > Google Image Search > John Fuerst
I guess the jedis only suppress the big brains at OpenPsych
Edit: wonder what a current poll would say, and if it will be administered by the jedis.
