Race is Real?

[David Mendlesohn]

I am?

Hmm, pretty sure that I am not..


Is that what I said or asked in response to what I quoted from you?

Pretty sure that it is not. Why are you badly trying to change what I am saying around?


I see that simple examples and questions to point out the idiocy of your position escaped you somewhat?

It is interesting that you cannot even answer a simple question, isn't it?

That was your chance to prove us all wrong. The reason I asked those questions is because I knew full well that you would avoid answering them with any scientific proof. It's all well and good to prattle on about "valuable traits" that apparently only appear or belong to one "race" over the other, but you are yet to define what these genetic traits are and, for example, what makes them so valuable.


Well you have been..

Going on about "black" and "white" as different "races".. Really, it is laughable.

How many "races" do you think there are? And what sets them apart genetically to others? What defines each as a separate "race"? I mean, you are arguing about genetic traits that exist in "whites" and "Asians" but not in "blacks".. Which "whites"? Which "race"? Who do you define as "white"? How about "Asians"? "Blacks"? You speak in general terms, grouping most by way of the colour of their skin. I asked you earlier, where do Indians fit into it and you could not even answer those questions. I also asked you about the Miao and Yi peoples.. Would you consider them the same "race"? Along with other Asians? Who comprises of the "Asian race"?

Your views on race and your behavioural genetic arguments are naive, childish and has every appearance of being a repetition of white supremacists who have come before you.

If you are going to argue that race exists, for example, then you need to be able to answer these questions and provide the scientific evidence to show that each of these groups have traits that completely and utterly sets them apart from other groups, in that these traits are distinct within their group. So, avoiding those questions and inventing and outright lying about what I have said, just makes your position here that little bit more pathetic and desperate.


That is because you are a white supremacist who argued that white people and Asians are more superior to "blacks".. It had kind of been a recurrent theme in your posts.

You had every opportunity to define and clarify "superior" or "valuable", instead, you chose to lie about what I have said, failed to understand the meaning of "example" and completely posted my comments out of context to whine about our refusal to accept or allow white supremacism on this website. For example, I have asked you to define and clarify certain terms, to provide genetic evidence. I mean, which genes are we talking about when it comes to "behavioural genetics" that differ between white people and black people? For example:



Which genes are involved? How do you define "race"? Which behaviour is linked to ones genetic make-up? How does environment affect it? Nutrition? Education? Access to healthcare?

Most importantly, what do you mean by "racial differences in behaviour"? What behaviour exists solely within one group but not in the other that would make it distinct? Which genes affect these behaviours or "racial differences"?

You whine about being told that white supremacism would see you banned and you make these sweeping statements, and when challenged on those statements, you lie about what I have said, twist my words and take them out of context while ignoring all requests for proof and further information..

For me it is a case of been there, done that.

Your complaints about this site not being scientific, but you are fleeing from any question that is even remotely scientific, because all you want to talk about is how "whites" are more superior than "blacks"..

You seem to have a lot of questions. I can answer all of them, please do not lie that I can't.

The reason I didn't is because you called me a "White supremacist" and threatened to ban me. So that was the pressing issue that needed to be addressed. Are you backing off from that? Since you need to ask questions to clarify my position, am I not a "White supremacist" that needs to be banned according to you moderation policy?

You said earlier my post was an example of White supremacy. You didn't ask me to clarify it. I have two questions which have not been clearly answered on this subject. Then we can change the subject all over the place as you seem to want to do.

1) Was my earlier statement White supremacist?

2) Will White supremacists be banned?

 

[iceaura]

But earlier you were arguing that lead caused racial differences. Now you are arguing that race is a meaningless concept?

No, I'm not arguing that race is a meaningless concept. It has great meaning, even if its entire meaning is restricted to the nature of the delusions of racial bigots in the US.

As increasingly seems to be the case here.

 

[spidergoat]

Indeed, my position would indicate that Whites and Asians are superior to Blacks on some traits, on average. Is that "White supremacism"?

Yes it is.

 

[David Mendlesohn]

No, I'm not arguing that race is a meaningless concept. It has great meaning, even if its entire meaning is restricted to the nature of the delusions of racial bigots in the US.

As increasingly seems to be the case here.

I'll respond to your empty name calling after Bells answers.

 

[David Mendlesohn]

Yes it is.

Lol.

 

[spidergoat]

All of the variables you've listed have been tested and eliminated.

Liar. You can't eliminate culture, which is the product of racism, among other things.

 

[spidergoat]

Lol.

Whites and Asians aren't simply a genetic group, they are a social group. Even adoption doesn't eliminate effects of culture. How do you account for this factor? How do account for the fact that IQ isn't a real thing, no one knows for sure what intelligence is or how to measure it?

 

[iceaura]

I'll respond to your empty name calling after B

You could address the non-empty matters of the non-name-calling aspects of the three or four posts and issues you have yet to address, in my posts,

as long as you are replying at all, to them.

 

[iceaura]

For example, you could deal with the implications of this objection to your overall approach:

Race was defined genealogically by Darwin and by genomic similarity by Mayr, as are all other taxa in animals

No human race has been found to be a valid taxonomic category on either geneological (outdated) or genomic (the modern gold standard) grounds.

 

[David Mendlesohn]

You could address the non-empty matters of the non-name-calling aspects of the three or four posts and issues you have yet to address, in my posts,

as long as you are replying at all, to them.

I'd like to address more pressing issues first, Apparently thinking there are important genetic differeces among humanity is "White supremacism" and grounds for banning. I want to know whether your moderator really thinks that, in which case I'll bow out, or whether she's a partisan pseudoscientist.

 

[iceaura]

I'd like to address more pressing issues first, Apparently thinking there are important genetic differeces among humanity is "White supremacism" and grounds for banning.

No, that is not the issue. Everyone here agrees that there are "important genetic differences among humanity", and nobody here would take that statement as any kind of supremacism.

The issues in my posts are more pressing, then - and you are responding to my posts anyway, without dealing with their content, so - - -- --

 

[David Mendlesohn]

No, that is not the issue. Everyone here agrees that there are "important genetic differences among humanity", and nobody here would take that statement as any kind of supremacism.

The issues in my posts are more pressing, then - and you are responding to my posts anyway, without dealing with their content, so - - -- --

You're a liar and that's exactly what your mod "Bells" said.

 

[iceaura]

You're a liar and that's exactly what your mod "Bells" said.

And another poster starts throwing the word "liar" around.

Lying about what? Hard to say. The question is whether this guy actually knows that

"important genetic differences among humanity"

is not the same thing as "important genetic differences between US sociological classes".

That the one is a truism, and the other one needs a very solid argument - which in the case of racial differences, it has never found.

 

[spidergoat]

Apparently thinking there are important genetic differeces among humanity is "White supremacism" and grounds for banning.

That's true, there are no important genetic differences among humanity.

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

You seem to have a lot of questions. I can answer all of them, please do not lie that I can't.

Well, from what I see, you are twisting yourself into knots to avoid answering them.

The reason I didn't is because you called me a "White supremacist" and threatened to ban me. So that was the pressing issue that needed to be addressed. Are you backing off from that? Since you need to ask questions to clarify my position, am I not a "White supremacist" that needs to be banned according to you moderation policy?

You said earlier my post was an example of White supremacy. You didn't ask me to clarify it. I have two questions which have not been clearly answered on this subject. Then we can change the subject all over the place as you seem to want to do.

1) Was my earlier statement White supremacist?

2) Will White supremacists be banned?

1) Your earlier statements were white supremacism. The reason being was pretty obvious. You are arguing from the point of white supremacism.

Your declaration that whites, for example, have superior genetic traits over "blacks" is the crux of white supremacism. Your declaration that whites and Asians have more "valuable genetic traits" than black people, is white supremacism.

This is where white supremacists come undone. Claiming "more valuable genetic traits" and "superior genetic traits", while failing to point out what those traits are, while failing to show how those traits do not appear in other ethnic groups, while going by colour alone, shows the stupidity of the stance you are taking.

More to the point, arguing white supremacist ideology will see you banned.

Your challenge is to argue your point without adhering to white supremacist talking points. I have asked you multiple questions, all of which you have failed to answer and instead, you have preferred to whine about how your white supremacism will see you banned.

This is the biology sub-forum. Instead of discussing actual biology, you are applying a rule and classification that used to be applied socially, based on classifications made of "race" that was based solely on the colour of one's skin. Which frankly, would be funny as batshit if it was not so pathetically wrong.

Race is a social construct and does not exist in biology. I asked you to prove how "race" was biologically defined. In other words, every ethnic group, regardless of the colour of one's skin, shares traits. There are no traits that exist solely within certain groups, that cannot be found in other ethnic groups across the globe. I asked you to show, with scientific evidence and actual biology, what these traits you believe only exist in one or two groups, but not the other. You argued that those traits are somehow or other more valuable because "whites" and "Asians" have them, but you cannot tell us what those actual genetic traits are and you have yet to show how "black" people do not have said genetic traits. It's easy to make wild and stupid statements, but it is another thing altogether to prove what they are. Most importantly, you and others who believe as you do, are completely unable to prove how those genetic traits are distinct to people of a certain colour.

2) Yes, white supremacists will be banned.

Permanently.

I hope that clears up your confusion.

 

[David Mendlesohn]

1) Your earlier statements were white supremacism. The reason being was pretty obvious. You are arguing from the point of white supremacism.

Your declaration that whites, for example, have superior genetic traits over "blacks" is the crux of white supremacism. Your declaration that whites and Asians have more "valuable genetic traits" than black people, is white supremacism.

So races are equal on all traits or it's "White supremacism"? What if a Chinese man agrees race is a valid biological construct defined by ancestry (not skin color) and races differ in average (not solely in one group) genetic mental ability? Is he a "White supremacist" too?

 

[billvon]

So races are equal on all traits or it's "White supremacism"?

Nope. Are you having trouble with the word "supremacism?"

What if a Chinese man agrees race is a valid biological construct defined by ancestry (not skin color) and races differ in average (not solely in one group) genetic mental ability? Is he a "White supremacist" too?

Not at all.

If, however, he feels that whites are superior to other races, he is a white supremacist. It's really a very simple concept that most people in the US understand. Either you are incredibly low-functioning in terms of comprehension, or you're trolling.

 

[timojin]

Mod Note


Well, from what I see, you are twisting yourself into knots to avoid answering them.


1) Your earlier statements were white supremacism. The reason being was pretty obvious. You are arguing from the point of white supremacism.

Your declaration that whites, for example, have superior genetic traits over "blacks" is the crux of white supremacism. Your declaration that whites and Asians have more "valuable genetic traits" than black people, is white supremacism.

This is where white supremacists come undone. Claiming "more valuable genetic traits" and "superior genetic traits", while failing to point out what those traits are, while failing to show how those traits do not appear in other ethnic groups, while going by colour alone, shows the stupidity of the stance you are taking.

More to the point, arguing white supremacist ideology will see you banned.

Your challenge is to argue your point without adhering to white supremacist talking points. I have asked you multiple questions, all of which you have failed to answer and instead, you have preferred to whine about how your white supremacism will see you banned.

This is the biology sub-forum. Instead of discussing actual biology, you are applying a rule and classification that used to be applied socially, based on classifications made of "race" that was based solely on the colour of one's skin. Which frankly, would be funny as batshit if it was not so pathetically wrong.

Race is a social construct and does not exist in biology. I asked you to prove how "race" was biologically defined. In other words, every ethnic group, regardless of the colour of one's skin, shares traits. There are no traits that exist solely within certain groups, that cannot be found in other ethnic groups across the globe. I asked you to show, with scientific evidence and actual biology, what these traits you believe only exist in one or two groups, but not the other. You argued that those traits are somehow or other more valuable because "whites" and "Asians" have them, but you cannot tell us what those actual genetic traits are and you have yet to show how "black" people do not have said genetic traits. It's easy to make wild and stupid statements, but it is another thing altogether to prove what they are. Most importantly, you and others who believe as you do, are completely unable to prove how those genetic traits are distinct to people of a certain colour.

2) Yes, white supremacists will be banned.

Permanently.

I hope that clears up your confusion.

 

[timojin]

Does other ethnic groups can produce albino, or only the black group ?

 

[David Mendlesohn]

Nope. Are you having trouble with the word "supremacism?"

Not at all.

If, however, he feels that whites are superior to other races, he is a white supremacist. It's really a very simple concept that most people in the US understand. Either you are incredibly low-functioning in terms of comprehension, or you're trolling.

Your post is just a generic contrarian "you just don't understand", while my post exactly follows from what was said.

"Your declaration that whites, for example, have superior genetic traits over "blacks" is the crux of white supremacism. "

So Whites and Blacks must a priori be equal on every trait? Chinese people cannot disagree or they're "White supremacists"?