User Controls
Policeman beheaded and son has heart/skin removed while alive
-
2018-02-18 at 10:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus I didn't even dispute that, cockfag. In fact I specifically pointed that out. That's simply not the issue under debate. The issue is whether or not "race" as it is seen now is a useful idea. It is not. There is no such thing as the "white race" or the "black race". Two "white" people from different populations such as from an Anglo background and the far Eastern reaches of Russia, who both evolved to achieve white skin, might have just as many differences in their genetics as either of those two and a sub-Saharan nigger.
Again, no shit faggot. "A computer" will note differences in cluster analyses between populations and we can do the same within each individual population, and the lines will only get clearer as we move down to the individual level, not blurrier. For example, a biological family will have closer genes to one another than any member of the family does to the average other member of the next hierarchical level of population (such as their city). We can play this game up and down the block. Now you tell me where we draw the line and call it a race like "black" or "white". I'll wait.
So what you're saying is, you came into this thread with only a straw man and your dick in your hands? Because I never denied genetic clustering you cum encrusted phallus enthusiast: my dispute has always been taxonomical in nature and how it's not a relevant or useful concept. I literally made this clear in my very first post responding to you on this, so you're just tilting at windmills. Now go gargle Jean-Francois's balls till he finally cums out a coherent response to the actual contention I have.
This is Captain Falcon btw.
Oh, hey Captain Falcon. Thank you for agreeing with 90% of my post. From what I've gathered, you are admitting to genetic differences between populations but you don't want to use words to describe these genetic and (observable) phenotypic realities.
So you're chilling with bae. You go to the kitchen to make a sandwich. There's a knock on the door. Bae says "I'll get it!" and gets up to see who's at the door. A second later you hear a scream and you quickly run to bae to see what's going on. You see bae on the floor, in a pool of blood, choking. In horror, you look up at the doorway and see a gentleman standing there with a knife in his hands. He smiles at you and runs away.
You cry a little bit then call the police. The police come and comfort you a little bit. They ask you for a description of the perpetrator. You suddenly remember how useless taxonomic categories are in describing phenotypic differences which are caused by genetic markers among human populations.
"Uhh...it was...like...this guy...I mean...he was wearing a black...a black jacket..."
"Could you describe his appearance?"
"Um...he had like...black...uh...black hair...like uh...short, black hair."
"What else do you remember?"
"Uhh...he was like, uhh...my height, maybe...maybe a little taller."
"Okay. It's okay, take your time. What did his face look like?"
"Umm...you know...the guy, uhh...I think he uh...I mean, like I agree that...genetic differences, like, exist but..."
"Sorry? What do you mean? What did he look like?"
"He had um...like...points to leather sofa but like points to own face".
"I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying he was wearing a mask? A leather mask?"
"No, um...no...his face...uhh...it was...it was like...it looked like...like this sofa..."
"It looked like this sofa? This sofa is black. Are you saying he was Black?"
"Uhh...you know...I really don't think it's uh...useful to, uh..."
I'm literally dying here. You must be slightly assburgered right? You're saying the concept of race is useless because "White" encompasses many different ethnicities while "Black" also encompasses various different ethnicities. Apparently if you line up a bunch of Icelandic, French, Hungarian, Ukrainian people alongside a bunch of Nigerian, Ghanaian, Zambian, Ugandan people, the concept of race would be entirely useless because all this wonderful diversity only exists in computers running genetic clusters but has no practical applications in real life situations. lmfao. Okay, that's cool. Hey man, to each their own right? I'm sure we're not going to change each other's minds here anyway. You're a millionaire anyway bro, you ain't gotta do this. Have a good day bro!The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-18 at 11:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by Daily Oh, hey Captain Falcon. Thank you for agreeing with 90% of my post.
It's more that 90% of your post is irrelevant and nothing that I disagreed with in the first place, but ok.From what I've gathered, you are admitting to genetic differences between populations but you don't want to use words to describe these genetic and (observable) phenotypic realities.
From what I gather, you're having athletic abilities problems.
When I say that race is scientifically meaningless, I'm not talking about what words we should use or whether or not genetic similarities exist in certain populations. Don't be a fucktard, we are not arguing the descriptive claims regarding biology, we are arguing the normative claims regarding race.
TL;Dr: you are not drawing the line that connects the reality that there are genetic similarities within populations, to the justifiability or usefulness of classifications like negroid, Caucasoid, mongoloid, australoid, graboid etc.
As for phenotypical realities, tell me about them. I can some very superficial ones like skin colour, but even those are on a spectrum and you need to define very clearly where to draw the line. If you're going to go for something like facial features, I can point out that the facial features of two individuals within one of these "races" can be just as different as those from another "race".
Don't make broad declarations about "phenotypical realities", tell me what these realities are that you believe in, and how they clearly correlate to these groupings.So you're chilling with bae. You go to the kitchen to make a sandwich. There's a knock on the door. Bae says "I'll get it!" and gets up to see who's at the door. A second later you hear a scream and you quickly run to bae to see what's going on. You see bae on the floor, in a pool of blood, choking. In horror, you look up at the doorway and see a gentleman standing there with a knife in his hands. He smiles at you and runs away.
You cry a little bit then call the police. The police come and comfort you a little bit. They ask you for a description of the perpetrator. You suddenly remember how useless taxonomic categories are in describing phenotypic differences which are caused by genetic markers among human populations.
"Uhh…it was…like…this guy…I mean…he was wearing a black…a black jacket…"
"Could you describe his appearance?"
"Um…he had like…black…uh…black hair…like uh…short, black hair."
"What else do you remember?"
"Uhh…he was like, uhh…my height, maybe…maybe a little taller."
"Okay. It's okay, take your time. What did his face look like?"
"Umm…you know…the guy, uhh…I think he uh…I mean, like I agree that…genetic differences, like, exist but…"
"Sorry? What do you mean? What did he look like?"
"He had um…like…points to leather sofa but like points to own face".
"I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying he was wearing a mask? A leather mask?"
"No, um…no…his face…uhh…it was…it was like…it looked like…like this sofa…"
"It looked like this sofa? This sofa is black. Are you saying he was Black?"
"Uhh…you know…I really don't think it's uh…useful to, uh…"
Didn't read, because it's based on the straw man that I don't like the use of the word "black".I'm literally dying here. You must be slightly assburgered right? You're saying the concept of race is useless because "White" encompasses many different ethnicities while "Black" also encompasses various different ethnicities. Apparently if you line up a bunch of Icelandic, French, Hungarian, Ukrainian people alongside a bunch of Nigerian, Ghanaian, Zambian, Ugandan people, the concept of race would be entirely useless because all this wonderful diversity only exists in computers running genetic clusters but has no practical applications in real life situations. lmfao. Okay, that's cool. Hey man, to each their own right? I'm sure we're not going to change each other's minds here anyway. You're a millionaire anyway bro, you ain't gotta do this. Have a good day bro!
I didn't say anything about ethnicity. Ethnicities are not necessarily (and rarely ever) related to the actual, scientific use of the word "population".
-
2018-02-18 at 11:16 PM UTCWell at least thread isn't about Obbe and his bullshit anymore.
-
2018-02-19 at 12:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus TL;Dr: you are not drawing the line that connects the reality that there are genetic similarities within populations, to the justifiability or usefulness of classifications like negroid, Caucasoid, mongoloid, australoid, graboid etc.
As for phenotypical realities, tell me about them. I can some very superficial ones like skin colour, but even those are on a spectrum and you need to define very clearly where to draw the line. If you're going to go for something like facial features, I can point out that the facial features of two individuals within one of these "races" can be just as different as those from another "race".
Don't make broad declarations about "phenotypical realities", tell me what these realities are that you believe in, and how they clearly correlate to these groupings.
I know we're all at least 30% trolls here, but please don't be disingenuous by saying I'm building a strawman and then accusing me of caring about 19th century classifications like caucasoid, negroid, fucktoid, etc. Stop asking me "where do you draw the line" when I specifically said two posts ago that the lines between ethnic populations are blurry and can be divided into many different sub-divisions which I already agreed are a product of the human brain.
Can you please tell me where the red ends and where the red begins? What about the blue? What about the green? Where do you draw the line? I sure don't know, but that does not deny the fact that we can look at most of the shades of each colour and understand using nothing but sight which colour is which in the general sense. Just because we do not know where to draw the line does not mean that individual colours cannot be recognised. We look at the colour of blood, or the colour of a strawberry, or the colour of a persian rug and we understand on a general level that each of these things are red.
The same thing can be applied to the global human population. Yes, there has been immigration, yes there has been race-mixing, yes there has been plastic surgery, but the average person can discern between different ethnic populations using nothing but phenotypic analysis (in this case, simply looking at somebody).
Other than skin colour, there are measurable differences in the mean dimensions of the skull and facial features. These include the nasal index, prognathism, shape of eye orbits, surface area of the lips and eyebrow ridges, among others. When we do nothing but look at an individual, our brains instantly recognise these differences even though we don't take out a tape measurer and compare the differences in millimeters of each aspect of the skull. Our brains are innately wired to recognise these differences in individuals. This is why, for example, we can instantly recognise an albino - there is a fuck up between the genes responsible for their skin colour and the genes responsible for the rest of their phenotype. This is also why you can look at female twins and find one more attractive than the other even though there would probably be a 0% chance of you coherently explaining why.
What you are doing, and what most people do when discussing race, is hone in on the exceptions while ignoring the general. If you live in a homogeneous town in Poland for 6 months, and then live in a homogeneous town in Denmark for 6 months, you will be exposed to both phenotypes long enough to be able to tell the differences between the two ethnic populations with a more than random accuracy by only looking at their face. This is meaningful because both populations, in the social sphere, will be classified as "Caucasian" or "Europid" or "White" and yet a phenotypic difference will still exist among the sub-divisions of this one genetic cluster. This relates to my point earlier, where I said you can further divide these sub-divisions.
Apply this to between populations rather than within populations and the phenotypic differences will be even greater - unsurprisingly so, because the further away the genetic clusters are away from each other, the more different their phenotype. Yes, I get it, there are Persians who look Afghan and there are Persians who look Greek. However, Persian, just like "White" or "Black" are socially constructed ever-evolving terms but this does not mean that phenotypic differences are arbitrary and random.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-19 at 2:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Daily I know we're all at least 30% trolls here, but please don't be disingenuous by saying I'm building a strawman and then accusing me of caring about 19th century classifications like caucasoid, negroid, fucktoid, etc.
I never said you cared about those classifications in specific. I'm asking why such classifications matter. You could give me a different set of classifications if you feel like it.Stop asking me "where do you draw the line" when I specifically said two posts ago that the lines between ethnic populations are blurry and can be divided into many different sub-divisions which I already agreed are a product of the human brain.
First of all, stop saying "ethnic". Ethnicity has literally zero relevance to this discussion. And secondly, then what's your point? What exactly are you disagreeing with me on?
I'd say the term "red" is just as scientifically meaningless as the term "black". If you're arguing that these things have use in a colloquial sense then again, I don't disagree with you, but that's also not what's under debate.
Can you please tell me where the red ends and where the red begins? What about the blue? What about the green? Where do you draw the line? I sure don't know, but that does not deny the fact that we can look at most of the shades of each colour and understand using nothing but sight which colour is which in the general sense. Just because we do not know where to draw the line does not mean that individual colours cannot be recognised. We look at the colour of blood, or the colour of a strawberry, or the colour of a persian rug and we understand on a general level that each of these things are red.The same thing can be applied to the global human population. Yes, there has been immigration, yes there has been race-mixing, yes there has been plastic surgery, but the average person can discern between different ethnic populations using nothing but phenotypic analysis (in this case, simply looking at somebody).
If you want to say right now that race is simply classification by skin colour then I will have no problem with the descriptive claim at all, except that I don't see the purpose of calling it race rather than just skin colour, seems like an unnecessary way to describe something that we already have an exact word for.Other than skin colour, there are measurable differences in the mean dimensions of the skull and facial features. These include the nasal index, prognathism, shape of eye orbits, surface area of the lips and eyebrow ridges, among others. When we do nothing but look at an individual, our brains instantly recognise these differences even though we don't take out a tape measurer and compare the differences in millimeters of each aspect of the skull. Our brains are innately wired to recognise these differences in individuals. This is why, for example, we can instantly recognise an albino - there is a fuck up between the genes responsible for their skin colour and the genes responsible for the rest of their phenotype. This is also why you can look at female twins and find one more attractive than the other even though there would probably be a 0% chance of you coherently explaining why.
You're only a tenth of the way to establishing some sort of a coherent argument. Race is not one or two such traits. "Race" as a concept is a composite of many different such attributes. The problem with the idea comes from trying to place all of these attributes into one category without any central correlative variable. It's a fundamentally broken categorization.
I'm not going to address the "you can just tell" part of this argument: it is worthless and I specifically believe race is a scientifically meaningless concept. I have no problem with saying "the suspect was black" because that is a perfectly justifiable statement about skin colour alone. Race is the overlap of these attributes and it has not been defined in any meaningful or useful way since dispersal theories were tossed out the window.
For further reading, please refer to:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564What you are doing, and what most people do when discussing race, is hone in on the exceptions while ignoring the general. If you live in a homogeneous town in Poland for 6 months, and then live in a homogeneous town in Denmark for 6 months, you will be exposed to both phenotypes long enough to be able to tell the differences between the two ethnic populations with a more than random accuracy by only looking at their face. This is meaningful because both populations, in the social sphere, will be classified as "Caucasian" or "Europid" or "White" and yet a phenotypic difference will still exist among the sub-divisions of this one genetic cluster. This relates to my point earlier, where I said you can further divide these sub-divisions.
I've already addressed the "you can tell bro" part. This is not a scientific argument. The simple fact remains that outside of one or perhaps a few sets of traits, if I were to select for any two random individuals within a given broad "race" (or other division of that sort) and compare either to one random individual from another race (or whatever is one step up on whatever arbitrary hierarchy we construct), the median genotypical and even phenotypical similarities would be approximately the same in most traits that are traditionally used to argue for the existence of race.Apply this to between populations rather than within populations and the phenotypic differences will be even greater - unsurprisingly so, because the further away the genetic clusters are away from each other, the more different their phenotype. Yes, I get it, there are Persians who look Afghan and there are Persians who look Greek. However, Persian, just like "White" or "Black" are socially constructed ever-evolving terms but this does not mean that phenotypic differences are arbitrary and random.
Random no. Arbitrary, that's down to where you draw the line. If you only want to argue there are genotypical and phenotypical differences between groups then again, I don't disagree, but if you don't want to make any specific claim beyond that, then I don't see what your beef is. -
2018-02-19 at 2:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Random no. Arbitrary, that's down to where you draw the line. If you only want to argue there are genotypical and phenotypical differences between groups then again, I don't disagree, but if you don't want to make any specific claim beyond that, then I don't see what your beef is.
I don't have any beef - this whole thing is just down to semantics. I choose to use the label "race" as a quick indicator to refer to these genetic and phenotypic group differences. If you don't want to, that's cool with me.
PS. linking to articles behind a paywall is not cool. -
2018-02-19 at 2:51 AM UTCPPS. you still recognise that the differences in genotype contributes to slight behavioural differences right? If you don't then I'm afraid you are too far gone.
-
2018-02-19 at 2:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Daily I don't have any beef - this whole thing is just down to semantics. I choose to use the label "race" as a quick indicator to refer to these genetic and phenotypic group differences. If you don't want to, that's cool with me.
I don't have a problem with that. I just think race is a scientifically meaningless concept.PS. linking to articles behind a paywall is not cool.
Sorry, I forgot you were poorThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-19 at 2:52 AM UTCCaptain Falcon thinks IQ differences among races are purely environmental
-
2018-02-19 at 3:15 AM UTC
-
2018-02-19 at 3:25 AM UTCThis nigga try to act like he got it made yet he ain’t even woke.
I’m setting an alarm clock for you, falco. Get ready to venture into the wonderful world of HBD. -
2018-02-19 at 3:26 AM UTC
-
2018-02-19 at 3:29 AM UTC
-
2018-02-19 at 3:32 AM UTCCaptain Falcon: of course there are genetic differences between populations!
Captain Falcon: no no genetics do not contribute to behaviour!
I am classifying you into the "mentally ill" group with Totse 2001 and co.
Good luck in all of your future endeavours -
2018-02-19 at 4:03 AM UTC
-
2018-02-19 at 4:06 AM UTCOh, so you all agree that racial behavioural differences exist but do not feel comfortable using the word race? Sweet.
-
2018-02-19 at 4:28 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon I'd say the term "red" is just as scientifically meaningless as the term "black". If you're arguing that these things have use in a colloquial sense then again, I don't disagree with you, but that's also not what's under debate.
Red and black are absolutely are used as scientific terms and are used in specific ways. For instance red light is defined as light of certain wavelength, and the red spectrum has certain properties when interacting with matter.
Same thing with the infrared, microwave, xray etc spectrum.
Black refers to a surface that absorbs light/radiation. It's an important concept for things like black-body radiation, etc.
You seem to love talking pure shite sometimes.For further reading, please refer to:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564
Every. Fucking. Time. -
2018-02-19 at 4:42 AM UTC
-
2018-02-19 at 5:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 Red and black are absolutely are used as scientific terms and are used in specific ways. For instance red light is defined as light of certain wavelength, and the red spectrum has certain properties when interacting with matter.
Same thing with the infrared, microwave, xray etc spectrum.
Black refers to a surface that absorbs light/radiation. It's an important concept for things like black-body radiation, etc.
You seem to love talking pure shite sometimes.
Every. Fucking. Time.
Exactly.
I had to study this with 3D art and material placement. it actually can affect how bump-map works.
Red can be measured with lightwave frequency of decibel (sound) and Nanometer (basically SINE with peak and valleys measured at distance between apex.
so "where does red start and end?"
around 700nm and 90db
555nm is a neon emergency green color. like a traffic sign. sort of a yellowish green. it is the highest peak in nm range and narrow in audible measurement. or something like this.
555 is knowledge in numerology and 555 is hardly heard because if it's high pitch. though the number goes higher, it actually begins to wane starting loudly and decreasing. So Shut the fuck up.
blind people may see colors based on music and sound.
-
2018-02-19 at 5:13 AM UTCSimilar to this?
http://www.flutopedia.com/sound_color.htm
I think you mean hertz (hz) instead of dB. dB is a measure basically of loudness.
I met someone who was starting a business doing sound healing not long ago. I think something similar to this. It's something that I'd love to try.
