[QUOTE=OleWally;25076028]If we scientifically categorized people (who are animals) the way we do to animals, then 'races' would technically be different species. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, or meant to cast other 'races/species' in a bad light. I don't think that other races are inferior for the slight differences they have, but we need to stop lying to ourselves.
[/QUOTE]
uh no we do not
animals are categorized in breeds, not races and dogs differ because they were bred to become genetically different.
Humans however, are not specialized, and we are the same across all races bar a few genetic differences which are not necessarily race related.
for instance, just because you have black parents, it doesn't mean you'll automatically become black
[QUOTE=OleWally;25076487]Find me a genetic textbook saying that all races are exactly the same aside from skin colour.[/QUOTE]
Find me one that says races have a limited IQ limit threshold based on ethnicity.
Neither of us will get either.
(Also stop posting while you're high :frogsiren:)
Saying humans are all the same genetically or physically would be wrong. Saying they can't achieve the same thing because of these differences is where you cross the line and become racist. (which OleWally hasn't quite crossed)
[QUOTE=Lambeth;25076551]Saying humans are all the same genetically or physically would be wrong. [/QUOTE]
but they are, if human is the classification
the issue here is that black and white don't describe anything in detail except skin colour and skin colour is not even necessarily racial
What the [b]christ[/b] happened to this thread? I think that's a record for quickest derailment ever.
[QUOTE=WickedIcon;25076663]What the [b]christ[/b] happened to this thread? I think that's a record for quickest derailment ever.[/QUOTE]
what would we discuss about the OP
it's kind of just a random fact
[QUOTE=WickedIcon;25076663]What the [b]christ[/b] happened to this thread? I think that's a record for quickest derailment ever.[/QUOTE]
It's a Daily Mail thread, seriousness doesn't last here.
[QUOTE=OleWally;25076487]Find me a genetic textbook saying that all races are exactly the same aside from skin colour.[/QUOTE]
[quote] American Anthropological Association
Statement on "Race"
(May 17, 1998)
The following statement was adopted by the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, acting on a draft prepared by a committee of representative American anthropologists. It does not reflect a consensus of all members of the AAA, as individuals vary in their approaches to the study of "race." We believe that it represents generally the contemporary thinking and scholarly positions of a majority of anthropologists.
In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.
Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.
From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus "race" was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in particular during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of slavery. The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans, Africans, and Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status differences, and provided the rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of their status differences.
As they were constructing US society, leaders among European-Americans fabricated the cultural/behavioral characteristics associated with each "race," linking superior traits with Europeans and negative and inferior ones to blacks and Indians. Numerous arbitrary and fictitious beliefs about the different peoples were institutionalized and deeply embedded in American thought.
Early in the 19th century the growing fields of science began to reflect the public consciousness about human differences. Differences among the "racial" categories were projected to their greatest extreme when the argument was posed that Africans, Indians, and Europeans were separate species, with Africans the least human and closer taxonomically to apes.
Ultimately "race" as an ideology about human differences was subsequently spread to other areas of the world. It became a strategy for dividing, ranking, and controlling colonized people used by colonial powers everywhere. But it was not limited to the colonial situation. In the latter part of the 19th century it was employed by Europeans to rank one another and to justify social, economic, and political inequalities among their peoples. During World War II, the Nazis under Adolf Hitler enjoined the expanded ideology of "race" and "racial" differences and took them to a logical end: the extermination of 11 million people of "inferior races" (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Africans, homosexuals, and so forth) and other unspeakable brutalities of the Holocaust.
"Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors.
At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modification. No human is born with a built-in culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture." Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are.
It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all normal human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior. The American experience with immigrants from hundreds of different language and cultural backgrounds who have acquired some version of American culture traits and behavior is the clearest evidence of this fact. Moreover, people of all physical variations have learned different cultural behaviors and continue to do so as modern transportation moves millions of immigrants around the world.
How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a given society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in that society. The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth. The tragedy in the United States has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances. [/quote]
[QUOTE=thisispain;25076519]uh no we do not[/quote]
We don't, but based on the criteria for which we assign things we should.
[QUOTE=thisispain;25076519]animals are categorized in breeds, not races and dogs differ because they were bred to become genetically different.[/quote]
I'm not talking about dogs, I'm talking about species. I'm also not talking about breeding, I'm talking about god damn geographic evolution.
[QUOTE=thisispain;25076519]Humans however, are not specialized, and we are the same across all races bar a few genetic differences which are not necessarily race related.[/quote]
Wrong, ethnicities of a shared ancestry are closely intra-related genetically to meet the standard for speciation.
[QUOTE=thisispain;25076519]for instance, just because you have black parents, it doesn't mean you'll automatically become black[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by this? That despite having 100% sub-Saharan parents you could be born Inuit?
[editline]07:47PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;25076544]Find me one that says races have a limited IQ limit threshold based on ethnicity.
Neither of us will get either.
(Also stop posting while you're high :frogsiren:)[/QUOTE]
I never said they have maximum IQ, I said they have an low average IQ. The exceptions do not make the rules.
[editline]07:49PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;25076551]Saying humans are all the same genetically or physically would be wrong. Saying they can't achieve the same thing because of these differences is where you cross the line and become racist. (which OleWally hasn't quite crossed)[/QUOTE]
Yes I never said that just because someone is Black doesn't mean they can't be smarter than a White person, they just don't have the genes on their side to make them overall smarter than Whites on average.
[QUOTE=OleWally;25076028]If we scientifically categorized people (who are animals) the way we do to animals, then 'races' would technically be different species. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, or meant to cast other 'races/species' in a bad light. I don't think that other races are inferior for the slight differences they have, but we need to stop lying to ourselves.
[editline]07:07PM[/editline]
Which other genetic textbooks? As far as I know, a scientific textbook contains scientifically demonstrable facts.[/QUOTE]
species can't interbreed you silly person
[QUOTE=OleWally;25076805]Yes I never said that just because someone is Black doesn't mean they can't be smarter than a White person, they just don't have the genes on their side to make them overall smarter than Whites on average.[/QUOTE]
Okay that right there is toeing the line
[QUOTE=OleWally;25076805]Yes I never said that just because someone is Black doesn't mean they can't be smarter than a White person, they just don't have the genes on their side to make them overall smarter than Whites on average.[/QUOTE]
Fig. A:
[i]"Blacks can't take care of themselves so let's put them to work in the fields. It'll be good for them."[/i]
[QUOTE=OleWally;25076805]I never said they have maximum IQ, I said they have an low average IQ. The exceptions do not make the rules.
Yes I never said that just because someone is Black doesn't mean they can't be smarter than a White person, they just don't have the genes on their side to make them overall smarter than Whites on average.[/QUOTE]
So you're telling me, that just because our ancestors (Who all came from Africa/the Middle east by the way) went across the world and become different physically, that the ones that stayed in Africa have absolutely no chance of surpassing or being equal than white people because most of them are genetically stupider and that things such as nutritional and material wealth for several generations have had absolutely no affect on this, and that the black people do well in America do so because they have bigger brains.
That's what you're saying, yes?
Richard Dawkins, geneticist:
[quote]“Race” is not a clearly defined word. “Species” is different. There really is an agreed way to decide whether two animals belong in the same species: can they interbreed? The interbreeding criterion gives the species a unique status in the hierarchy of taxonomic levels. Above the species level, a genus is just a group of species whose members are pretty similar to each other. No objective criterion exists to determine how similar they have to be, and the same is true of all the higher levels: family, order, class, phylum and the various “sub-” or “super-” names that intervene between them. Below the species level, “race” and “sub-species” are used interchangeably and, again, no objective criterion exists that would enable us to decide whether two people should be considered part of the same race or not, nor to decide how many races there are. And of course there is the added complication, absent above the species level, that races interbreed, so there are lots of people of mixed race.
The interbreeding criterion works pretty well, and it delivers an unequivocal verdict on humans and their supposed races. All living human races interbreed with one another. We are all members of the same species, and no reputable biologist would say any different. But let me call your attention to an interesting, perhaps even slightly disturbing, fact. While we happily interbreed with each other, producing a continuous spectrum of inter-races, we are reluctant to give up our divisive racial language. Wouldn’t you expect that if all intermediates are on constant display, the urge to classify people as one or the other of two extremes would wither away, smothered by the absurdity of the attempt, which is continually manifested everywhere we look? But this is not what happens, and perhaps that very fact is revealing.
People who are universally agreed by all Americans to be “black” may draw less than one eighth of their ancestry from Africa, and often have a light skin colour well within the normal range for people universally agreed to be “white.” In the picture on the next page of four American politicians, two are described in all newspapers as black, the other two as white. Wouldn’t a Martian, unschooled in our conventions but able to see skin shades, be more likely to split them three against one? But in our culture, almost everybody will immediately “see” Colin Powell as “black,” even in this particular photograph which happens to show him with possibly lighter skin than both George W Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.[/quote]
[QUOTE=OleWally;25075656][highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Alt of a permabanned user" - Jaanus))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
Aw. I wanted to see him squirm.
[QUOTE=OleWally;25075656]
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Alt of a permabanned user" - Jaanus))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
Thank christ he's ban-on-sight now
Yeah, let's blame Obama for this. I think he should take everyone out there homes, and start moving people around until we are all integrated.
[QUOTE=OleWally;25076805]We don't, but based on the criteria for which we assign things we should.[/QUOTE]
i don't even know what you are talking about
[QUOTE=OleWally;25076805]I'm not talking about dogs, I'm talking about species. I'm also not talking about breeding, I'm talking about god damn geographic evolution.[/QUOTE]
species? all dogs are Canis lupus or Wolves, and all humans are Homo sapiens
[QUOTE=OleWally;25076805]Wrong, ethnicities of a shared ancestry are closely intra-related genetically to meet the standard for speciation.[/QUOTE]
humans do not meet any of those standards because we can procreate because we are the same species
this is why gorillas and humans are not in the same species
[QUOTE=OleWally;25076805]What do you mean by this? That despite having 100% sub-Saharan parents you could be born Inuit?[/QUOTE]
when parents do not have 100% full ethnicity (full ethnicity would only exist in the untouched parts of the world) there's a chance their offspring contains genetic data of the non-dominant allele
[editline]05:37PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=OleWally;25076805]
Yes I never said that just because someone is Black doesn't mean they can't be smarter than a White person, they just don't have the genes on their side to make them overall smarter than Whites on average.[/QUOTE]
there is absolutely no evidence for this
This thread is totally gonna lose momentum now.
I'm from Texas, not much racial hate tbh.
NYC map cannot get anymore correct lmao.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;25075582]So a graph showing that blacks have smaller brains than other races is perfectly fine? You'know, except it like, goes against all biology and science in general? And was written by a very well known racist?
Also, you never answered my rebuttal. Maybe you should go do that.[/QUOTE]
If it's true then technically it isn't racist
but it probably isn't true
[QUOTE=OleWally;25075656]
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Alt of a permabanned user" - Jaanus))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
[del]Karskin[/del]
[del]CriticalThought[/del]
[del]Gargathul0th[/del]
[del]OleWally[/del]
This guy is desperate, permabanned 4 times...
I think he learned to be less insulting this time round though.
The Houston map seems pretty accurate. They have a large Black/Hispanic population
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;25082360]If it's true then technically it isn't racist
but it probably isn't true[/QUOTE]
Well no, if it is true it's not racist.
But the problem is it wasn't true (The graph showed black people had a brain 1/4 the size..)
[QUOTE=starpluck;25082496][del]Karskin[/del]
[del]CriticalThought[/del]
[del]Gargathul0th[/del]
[del]OleWally[/del]
This guy is desperate, permabanned 4 times...[/QUOTE]
he MUST tell us about the muslim menace!!!!!!!! before they outbreed all of europe!!!!!!!!!!!
[quote]species can't interbreed you silly person [/quote]
Depends on the species in question. And what definition of species you are using. It can be quite nebulus at times.
Also, we need a :dailymail: emote. It's like fox'news'.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;25081349]I'm from Texas, not much racial hate tbh.[/QUOTE]
Its true. Us crackers get along just fine with the other races.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;25085856]Well no, if it is true it's not racist.
But the problem is it wasn't true (The graph showed black people had a brain 1/4 the size..)[/QUOTE]
Actually if you knew how to read a graph you would have seen that there actually wasn't that much of a gap between the two totals, just in the bars on the graph. Not surprising to see that you have a 3rd grade grasp of mathematics though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.