Christian Sodomy
Registered Senior Member
You were the one who attempted to construe this as politicized conflict first.
Thus you have now fully contradicted yourself.
I collect a scalp.
"Is Race Real?"
- Thread starter Christian Sodomy
- Start date
You were the one who attempted to construe this as politicized conflict first.
Thus you have now fully contradicted yourself.
I collect a scalp.
Christian Sodomy
Registered Senior Member
The "scientists" would rather politicize this than explain it in terms of science.
Not very intellectually honest of them.
current racial categories are based on an individuals outward appearance. for a generalized classification, say in a census, it seems more than adequate tho obviously there will be errors
if i see kinky hair, i'd say african. now australoids have that too but bringing them into the picture serves no purpose since i live in the western hemisphere. if i see blonde, i'd say caucasian tho there will be a margin of error again. if i see black hair, i'd want to factor in more physical stuff, like say... slant eyes, color of skin etc
personally, i think what one is made of, should be something that is b/w you and your doctor/hmo/insurance
if i see kinky hair, i'd say african. now australoids have that too but bringing them into the picture serves no purpose since i live in the western hemisphere. if i see blonde, i'd say caucasian tho there will be a margin of error again. if i see black hair, i'd want to factor in more physical stuff, like say... slant eyes, color of skin etc
personally, i think what one is made of, should be something that is b/w you and your doctor/hmo/insurance
Christian Sodomy
Registered Senior Member
Originally posted by spookz
current racial categories are based on an individuals outward appearance. for a generalized classification, say in a census, it seems more than adequate tho obviously there will be errors
if i see kinky hair, i'd say african. now australoids have that too but bringing them into the picture serves no purpose since i live in the western hemisphere. if i see blonde, i'd say caucasian tho there will be a margin of error again. if i see black hair, i'd want to factor in more physical stuff, like say... slant eyes, color of skin etc
personally, i think what one is made of, should be something that is b/w you and your doctor/hmo/insurance
What we've been saying all along is this: race is a collection of traits, not a single trait.
I think you should re-read the debate above. It has reached stalemate as one side has found a more abstract and coherent articulation than the other, who seem to rely on hearsay (while calling it "science").
Fountain
List a set of traits that will always specify a race and then classify those races. If you cannot list those traits, if there is no genetic code for race, if there is no SCIENTIFIC way to quantify the term race, then it is at best sociological and at worst nonsense.
Let me show you where you logical error lies :
If you cannot list those traits, if there is no genetic code for race
You obviously are aware of the illogics , since you consciously did not put in then , but a mere if ..... nice assumption however incorrect .
Yes I can list you specific racial traits , however as you know very well those traits are not going to represent an identical group as a race is never 100% homo-genetic (on racial relevant genes) however it is created out of little difference between 2 eventually different traits .
Another point is simply that I have no perfect knowledge of those traits to scientifically mention them . That does not mean that they are not there .
And since we are reminding oneanother of things , you have not been able to deny the obvious physical comonness of peoples . If you cannot do that you have to acknoweldge grouping as it is not random traits that are being spread but traits through a logical mixing between peoples over the years , creating the common picture one can have about a peoples .
Again , that core is what is relevant for our "race"
Race holds no anthropological value. Cultures do. It serves no anthropological purpose to group all Europeans as caucasian.
Ofcourse it does , the prupose is showing their common ancestry as 1 group of peoples . Is that not of anthropological value ? Not as a group of cultural peoples , but peoples sharing blood , a family .
The only reason why this is done is simply because the discipline is still based on ancient and false thinking. Sociologically--as I previously stated, groups are best quantified sociologically using such data as income range, locality, etc. The only time race serves any purpose sociologically is when it is linked with racial discrimmination or prejudice. Thus you can correlate race and arrests as the motives are supposedly racial; it is however better to correlate education level with income and not race.
I say the values are anthropological and historical as a group reflects where it has been and with who it has mixed , revealing its history . I am sure you have not forgotten our discussion about Kemet , how do you exclude the relevance of race in a discussion like that ?
BTW : hows that reply doing ?
In conclusion , I think that denying races as well as valuing races knows its origin in racial friction within ones own reasoning rather than scientific research .
List a set of traits that will always specify a race and then classify those races. If you cannot list those traits, if there is no genetic code for race, if there is no SCIENTIFIC way to quantify the term race, then it is at best sociological and at worst nonsense.
Let me show you where you logical error lies :
If you cannot list those traits, if there is no genetic code for race
You obviously are aware of the illogics , since you consciously did not put in then , but a mere if ..... nice assumption however incorrect .
Yes I can list you specific racial traits , however as you know very well those traits are not going to represent an identical group as a race is never 100% homo-genetic (on racial relevant genes) however it is created out of little difference between 2 eventually different traits .
Another point is simply that I have no perfect knowledge of those traits to scientifically mention them . That does not mean that they are not there .
And since we are reminding oneanother of things , you have not been able to deny the obvious physical comonness of peoples . If you cannot do that you have to acknoweldge grouping as it is not random traits that are being spread but traits through a logical mixing between peoples over the years , creating the common picture one can have about a peoples .
Again , that core is what is relevant for our "race"
Race holds no anthropological value. Cultures do. It serves no anthropological purpose to group all Europeans as caucasian.
Ofcourse it does , the prupose is showing their common ancestry as 1 group of peoples . Is that not of anthropological value ? Not as a group of cultural peoples , but peoples sharing blood , a family .
The only reason why this is done is simply because the discipline is still based on ancient and false thinking. Sociologically--as I previously stated, groups are best quantified sociologically using such data as income range, locality, etc. The only time race serves any purpose sociologically is when it is linked with racial discrimmination or prejudice. Thus you can correlate race and arrests as the motives are supposedly racial; it is however better to correlate education level with income and not race.
I say the values are anthropological and historical as a group reflects where it has been and with who it has mixed , revealing its history . I am sure you have not forgotten our discussion about Kemet , how do you exclude the relevance of race in a discussion like that ?
BTW : hows that reply doing ?
In conclusion , I think that denying races as well as valuing races knows its origin in racial friction within ones own reasoning rather than scientific research .
Christian Sodomy
Registered Senior Member
Race is genetic memory of culture and experience. Why are all these people opposed to the existence of unique cultures (single people are not a culture...plz)?
the only thing you are collecting is disrespect.
Christian Sodomy
Registered Senior Member
Respect is only important among those I respect.
"A company in Sarasota, Fla., is offering a DNA test that it says will measure customers' racial ancestry and their ancestral proportions if they are of mixed race.
Dr. Frudakis said the test was based on a set of genetic markers known as SNP's, pronounced 'snips,' that were mostly drawn from public databases. SNP's are sites along the human genome where alternative chemical letters of DNA, the genetic material, are commonly found, with some people having one letter, some another.
Working with Dr. Mark Shriver of Pennsylvania State University, DNAPrint Genomics has developed SNP's that are diagnostic of a person's continent of origin, Dr. Frudakis said. These five geographical areas correspond to the major human population groups or races, those of 'Native American, East Asian, South Asian, European, sub-Saharan African, etc.,' according to the company's Web site."
http://www.racesci.org/in_media/raceanddna/dna_test_nyt_Oct2002.htm
"A company in Sarasota, Fla., is offering a DNA test that it says will measure customers' racial ancestry and their ancestral proportions if they are of mixed race.
Dr. Frudakis said the test was based on a set of genetic markers known as SNP's, pronounced 'snips,' that were mostly drawn from public databases. SNP's are sites along the human genome where alternative chemical letters of DNA, the genetic material, are commonly found, with some people having one letter, some another.
Working with Dr. Mark Shriver of Pennsylvania State University, DNAPrint Genomics has developed SNP's that are diagnostic of a person's continent of origin, Dr. Frudakis said. These five geographical areas correspond to the major human population groups or races, those of 'Native American, East Asian, South Asian, European, sub-Saharan African, etc.,' according to the company's Web site."
http://www.racesci.org/in_media/raceanddna/dna_test_nyt_Oct2002.htm
Reduced to a red haring fallacy spuriousmonkey? You’ve been wiped.
Single nucleotide polymorphisms are highly variable per person of even the same family line. To make such a racial profiling system work they would need one hell of a data base.
I agree with this greatly. There are hundreds if not thousand of genetic "races" all depending on how you classify them: the problem goes out of genetics and into taxonomy and don’t even get me started on taxonomist!
Single nucleotide polymorphisms are highly variable per person of even the same family line. To make such a racial profiling system work they would need one hell of a data base.
I agree with this greatly. There are hundreds if not thousand of genetic "races" all depending on how you classify them: the problem goes out of genetics and into taxonomy and don’t even get me started on taxonomist!
can we spell it out for you one more time.
A genetic marker is not the same as the existence of race on a population level.
A genetic marker is not the same as the existence of race on a population level.
Anyway. If you are all so knowledgable then let's hear it.
Name 2 human races and tell us how specific genetic differences lead to the morphological or other differences between these races.
have fun.
Name 2 human races and tell us how specific genetic differences lead to the morphological or other differences between these races.
have fun.
Spurius":
However a group of genetic markers that represent the physical appearance of a group of an eventually blood-related peoples IS . How many times does that need to be spelled out to you ?
I thought you agreed with paulsamuel as he said :
there are genetic markers that can ID individuals based on skin color etc
So why is it necesarry to show you with gen is responsible for what ? I surely have no clue , but since I resemble my parents physically these characteristics would be printed in my genes no ?
However a group of genetic markers that represent the physical appearance of a group of an eventually blood-related peoples IS . How many times does that need to be spelled out to you ?
I thought you agreed with paulsamuel as he said :
there are genetic markers that can ID individuals based on skin color etc
So why is it necesarry to show you with gen is responsible for what ? I surely have no clue , but since I resemble my parents physically these characteristics would be printed in my genes no ?
why? (answer that then)
and you don't even know what a genetic marker is. Or please answer that one too.
and you don't even know what a genetic marker is. Or please answer that one too.
http://www.uvm.edu/~cgep/Education/FAQ.html
please .... stop this crap its silly ok ?
why? (answer that then)
Because its handy to have it for anthropological & historical purposes . If we can name/identify a specific group of peoples we can study their movements , their influence and what has influenced them .
Thats all , is that so hard to live with ? Sure we can use other anthropologicc deifnitions dealing with their culture , language etc . But guess what , I can adopt those , it says nothing about my history . Thus we need something that does have historical relevance in such perspective , therefore we need race , the groups above it and the groups beyond .
You however dont want to distinguish beyond Homo-Sapiens .... surely for motives related to the mixup of race and its values beyond what I have proposed , and that simply conflict with your emotions on the subject .
No ?
Then why refuse to acknowledge that Somali have a distinct race or or sub-race or sub-sub-race or whatever place it holds within homo spaiens ? Is there no anthropological relevance or historical relevance whatsoever that they dont look like Armenians ? Tell me
http://www.uvm.edu/~cgep/Education/FAQ.html
please .... stop this crap its silly ok ?
why? (answer that then)
Because its handy to have it for anthropological & historical purposes . If we can name/identify a specific group of peoples we can study their movements , their influence and what has influenced them .
Thats all , is that so hard to live with ? Sure we can use other anthropologicc deifnitions dealing with their culture , language etc . But guess what , I can adopt those , it says nothing about my history . Thus we need something that does have historical relevance in such perspective , therefore we need race , the groups above it and the groups beyond .
You however dont want to distinguish beyond Homo-Sapiens .... surely for motives related to the mixup of race and its values beyond what I have proposed , and that simply conflict with your emotions on the subject .
No ?
Then why refuse to acknowledge that Somali have a distinct race or or sub-race or sub-sub-race or whatever place it holds within homo spaiens ? Is there no anthropological relevance or historical relevance whatsoever that they dont look like Armenians ? Tell me
let me sum up your brilliant argument.
can you point out the unscientific reasoning in this yourself, or do I have to do it for you?
can you point out the unscientific reasoning in this yourself, or do I have to do it for you?
your answer is still on page 1
Ghassan Kanafani,
Not all black people are black because of the same genes, nor are many other features or traits universal through a conventional race. This means any attempt to characterize people on specific “races” will be very error prone and inaccurate.
Not all black people are black because of the same genes, nor are many other features or traits universal through a conventional race. This means any attempt to characterize people on specific “races” will be very error prone and inaccurate.
you do realize of course that dividing the human species up in 'races' based on genetic marker is not different that dividing them up according to the possesion of a 'jewish nose' or not. And with that you have place yourself in a certain category of people, whether you like it or not. It is very nice to have an excuse that sounds semi-scientific to the un-initiated, but please don't play these games with us. I know what you are saying. And you can dress it up in a pretty pink dress, but it still smells.
Spurious :
this is because of the distribution of genetic variation where variation within a race is greater than between races
And so is the refutation . This rule defines species not races , since not all genes are relevant for what we call race .
you do realize of course that dividing the human species up in 'races' based on genetic marker is not different that dividing them up according to the possesion of a 'jewish nose' or not.
No its not its totally different since Judaism is a religion and no noses come along with religions , unlike they do come along with races and by that I can say that what would be typical a "jewish" nose rather is typical amongst "slavs" & "turkics" .
But since there is no slavic or turkic unity in your racial denial indeed it all just wouldnt exist .
And with that you have place yourself in a certain category of people, whether you like it or not.
Not really , wow you seem to be confused arent you ? What category would I place myself ? Peoples who think a religion is a race ? With nazi's and zionists who uphold nationalism ? LOL
You're getting so funny
It is very nice to have an excuse that sounds semi-scientific to the un-initiated, but please don't play these games with us. I know what you are saying. And you can dress it up in a pretty pink dress, but it still smells.
And what am I saying then that smells so bad according to you ? Tell me please , since you are the one here assuming me as some racist , then comparing me with some jewish-race believers , you tell me how ?
And who is "you" ? Is there some elite you feel part of ?
Fetus :
Not all black people are black because of the same genes, nor are many other features or traits universal through a conventional race. This means any attempt to characterize people on specific “races” will be very error prone and inaccurate.
So skincolor isnt genetically decided ? Then through what ? No they dont have ALL the same genes , but they sure as hell have similar genes relevant to the color of their skin .
And what universal or conventional race are you talking about ? We are long passed such forms , we are now in some sub-sub-sub-sub where for instance Somali's with the same traits are the result of . What is wrong with establishing the relation between them as exisiting/mixing/moving peoples and their traits through giving it a name so our study can be more accurate ?
Calling them Somali only says something about their nationality , their language , etc . But when studied as a peoples a better and BLOOD-related identification is at its place .
this is because of the distribution of genetic variation where variation within a race is greater than between races
And so is the refutation . This rule defines species not races , since not all genes are relevant for what we call race .
you do realize of course that dividing the human species up in 'races' based on genetic marker is not different that dividing them up according to the possesion of a 'jewish nose' or not.
No its not its totally different since Judaism is a religion and no noses come along with religions , unlike they do come along with races and by that I can say that what would be typical a "jewish" nose rather is typical amongst "slavs" & "turkics" .
But since there is no slavic or turkic unity in your racial denial indeed it all just wouldnt exist .
And with that you have place yourself in a certain category of people, whether you like it or not.
Not really , wow you seem to be confused arent you ? What category would I place myself ? Peoples who think a religion is a race ? With nazi's and zionists who uphold nationalism ? LOL
You're getting so funny
It is very nice to have an excuse that sounds semi-scientific to the un-initiated, but please don't play these games with us. I know what you are saying. And you can dress it up in a pretty pink dress, but it still smells.
And what am I saying then that smells so bad according to you ? Tell me please , since you are the one here assuming me as some racist , then comparing me with some jewish-race believers , you tell me how ?
And who is "you" ? Is there some elite you feel part of ?
Fetus :
Not all black people are black because of the same genes, nor are many other features or traits universal through a conventional race. This means any attempt to characterize people on specific “races” will be very error prone and inaccurate.
So skincolor isnt genetically decided ? Then through what ? No they dont have ALL the same genes , but they sure as hell have similar genes relevant to the color of their skin .
And what universal or conventional race are you talking about ? We are long passed such forms , we are now in some sub-sub-sub-sub where for instance Somali's with the same traits are the result of . What is wrong with establishing the relation between them as exisiting/mixing/moving peoples and their traits through giving it a name so our study can be more accurate ?
Calling them Somali only says something about their nationality , their language , etc . But when studied as a peoples a better and BLOOD-related identification is at its place .