[QUOTE=NoDachi;39561511]The burden of proof is in your hands.[/QUOTE]
No you're obviously too biased to not search for the information.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39561492]Home-sapiens don't have subspecies.
There can be more biological difference between me and another white British guy than someone from the middle east.[/QUOTE]
Bad reading
[quote]it's not a scientific term and it is [B]not [/B]equivalent to [B]subspecies [/B](when talking about humans)[/quote]
[QUOTE=north korea;39560517]But race =/= religion. I also think that "not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim." (which is true) and I'm not racist.[/QUOTE]
According FBI's website, 6% of terrorists are Muslims. But guess what? 7% of terrorists are Jews, and roughly 7% are Christian extremists
You don't see people saying to ban Jews
[QUOTE=north korea;39561520]No you're obviously too biased to not search for the information.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html[/url]
[QUOTE=The Baconator;39561661]According FBI's website, 6% of terrorists are Muslims. But guess what? 7% of terrorists are Jews, and roughly 7% are Christian extremists
You don't see people saying to ban Jews[/QUOTE]
The statistics go for USA. And it's not easy to get a US visa anymore, not to mention that it'd be nearly impossible for a suspicious Middle Easterner. Muslim terrorism is now almost inexistant in non-Muslim countries because of strict controls and checks.
But on another hand, Islamic countries are boiling with Islamic terrorism.
[editline]12th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39561736][url]http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html[/url][/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation[/url]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39561522]Bad reading[/QUOTE]
Both basal Homo sapiens and the sub-species Homo sapiens idaltu have died out, leaving only the sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens extant.
That's us. We are at once only a sub-species of the larger species.
Species can exhibit a wide range of skin colour, feature patterns, etc, without being classified as a different species or sub-species.
I flew with a muslim once, transatlantic, they used some features of the in-flight map to pray towards mecca
pretty cool shit
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39561768]Both basal Homo sapiens and the sub-species Homo sapiens idaltu have died out, leaving only the sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens extant.
That's us. We are at once only a sub-species of the larger species.
Species can exhibit a wide range of skin colour, feature patterns, etc, without being classified as a different species or sub-species.[/QUOTE]
Will you fucking read it or not?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39561477](race) is not equivalent to subspecies[/quote]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39561785]Will you fucking read it or not?[/QUOTE]
I think the problem in reading lies with you.
Where am I trying to equate races to subspecies?
No need to feel threatened because I felt the need to clarify a point for the rest of the idiots in this thread.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39561800]I think the problem in reading lies with you.
Where am I trying to equate races to subspecies?[/QUOTE]
Everywhere where I'm talking about races and you're talking about subspecies?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39561811]Everywhere where I'm talking about races and you're talking about subspecies?[/QUOTE]
I'm just saying they no longer exist.
Why so defensive? You don't disagree do you?
Anyway, you're the only person to mention subspecies to begin with. Why did you even mention them to begin with?
arguing about whether races constitute separate "species" or "subspecies" or just variation is arguing about the map not the territory and it's best to avoid it since all those words have unspoken political connotations.
I mean there isn't really a concrete definition of what species and subspecies are so that's another layer of pointlessness on top of that
the fact remains that we can split the human population up into categories according to genetic differences, and though they do form distinct clusters there's always a considerable degree of overlap and depending on your standards you can end up with anywhere between 1 and 200 different racial groups. that said, the folk taxonomy of humans into the classic "white", "asian", "black", "latino", "ashkenazi", etc groupings do correspond somewhat (though nowhere near perfectly) to salient clusters.
[quote]He also claimed New Zealand's rights were being denigrated by [b]"misogynist troglodytes from Wogistan"[/b].[/quote]
Why does this look like babby talk even though i know it ain't
Alright, American here. Is a 'wog' a derogatory term for New Zealanders?
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39561816]I'm just saying they no longer exist.
Why so defensive? You don't disagree do you?[/QUOTE]
??? To my post saying that we do have races you kept on going how we don't have subspecies...
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39561816]Anyway, you're the only person to mention subspecies to begin with. Why did you even mention them to begin with?[/QUOTE]
Because you quoted wikipedia where it said that there's just one human species and that was supposed to prove there are no human races.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39561883]??? To my post saying that we do have races you kept on going how we don't have subspecies...[/QUOTE]
[I]"I thought "races" aren't in taxonomy but the term is unofficial and[B] is generally used synonymously with subspecies[/B] not with species."[/I]
[editline]12th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39561883]Because you quoted wikipedia where it said that there's just one human species and that was supposed to prove there are no human races.[/QUOTE]
No I didn't. Its your turn for ~bad reading~.
Stop wasting my time.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39561903][I]"I thought "races" aren't in taxonomy but the term is unofficial and[B] is generally used synonymously with subspecies[/B] not with species."[/I][/QUOTE]
[I]"I thought "races" aren't in taxonomy but the term is unofficial and is generally used synonymously with subspecies not with species. [B](Although the division is a bit different for people since we've interbred so much that nobody really meets the criteria.)[/B]"[/I]
Did you finally read it since you edited out that part?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39561924][I]"I thought "races" aren't in taxonomy but the term is unofficial and is generally used synonymously with subspecies not with species. [B](Although the division is a bit different for people since we've interbred so much that nobody really meets the criteria.)[/B]"[/I]
Did you finally read it since you edited out that part?[/QUOTE]
Okay, you miss read me and got really pissy and defensive because?
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39561903] No I didn't. Its your turn for ~bad reading~.
Stop wasting my time.[/QUOTE]
So you didn't say that there are no human races? Not only you can't read but you have short time memory loss.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39561179][QUOTE=north korea;39561154][QUOTE=NoDachi;39561141]Protip: 'Races' don't even exist.[/QUOTE]Ok.[/QUOTE]Since you love wikipedia so much.
[quote]Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic,[B] religious, or social affiliation. [/B]First used to denote national affiliations, the term began to be used to relate to physical traits in the 17th century. In the early 20th century the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[1][2][3]
While biologists sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the [B]scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used[4] in a naive[5] or simplistic way, i.e. that among humans, race has no taxonomic significance: all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[6][7][/B][/quote]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)[/URL][/QUOTE]
I have pointed out that the wiki page tries to equate races to species, and then said that we do have races but they are not the same as neither species or subspecies and then you went about how we don't have subspecies. And I'm the guy who misread something?
But it doesn't.
Look at the first sentence again.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39562285]But it doesn't.
Look at the first sentence again.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't what? Show that there are no races by saying we all belong to one species?
[quote]While biologists sometimes use the concept of [B]race [/B]to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the [B]scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used[4] in a naive[5] or simplistic way,[/B] i.e. that among humans, race has no taxonomic significance: [B]all living humans belong to the same species[/B], Homo sapiens and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[/quote]
[editline]12th February 2013[/editline]
It makes no sense. Race is sometimes used synonymously with subspecies not species. And even then, not in case of humans. When talking about human races we're talking about something else.
But race is a social construct, not a biological one.
I.e. it doesn't really exist at a scientific level.
Its just an old word from old anthropology that hasn't fallen out of use yet. And race hasn't commonly been tied with the pseudo-science of current day 'subspecies' since well, the nazi party.
people need to realise:
blowing shit up for jihad is literally the EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT JIHAD IS
its the moral battle between good and evil, but also a code of war for muslims which specifically states:
"dont harm anyone but the soldiers on the battlefield only, also dont blow shit up"
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39562722]But race is a social construct, not a biological one.
I.e. it doesn't really exist at a scientific level.
Its just an old word from old anthropology that hasn't fallen out of use yet. And race hasn't commonly been tied with the pseudo-science of current day 'subspecies' since well, the nazi party.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say races don't exist, but rather they are the result of running [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-means_clustering]k-means[/URL] on the human race. You can cluster humans DNA into as many groups as you want, and you choose the k, or the precision of the clustering.
EDIT: tl;dr where you draw the line is a subjective criterion
[QUOTE=Azurblau;39560505]Suddenly New Zealand is target of airlines bombings, led by white muslim extremists.[/QUOTE]
more like angry liberals
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39562722]But race is a social construct, not a biological one.
I.e. it doesn't really exist at a scientific level.
Its just an old word from old anthropology that hasn't fallen out of use yet. And race hasn't commonly been tied with the pseudo-science of current day 'subspecies' since well, the nazi party.[/QUOTE]
First of all you said races don't even exist. You didn't say "on scientific level". And for the discussion at hand it didn't need to be a scientific term. Your comment was irrelevant at best.
Second, it's not purely "social construct". There are biological differences between races. You're not fucking telling me that color of skin is a social construct.
Third, I have never tied races with subspecies. You and wikipedia did. Tried to show how there are no races because there are no subspecies, which is something completely different.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39562722]But race is a social construct, not a biological one.
I.e. it doesn't really exist at a scientific level.
Its just an old word from old anthropology that hasn't fallen out of use yet. And race hasn't commonly been tied with the pseudo-science of current day 'subspecies' since well, the nazi party.[/QUOTE]
while not untrue this is a very misleading way to put it
eudoxia's post is good
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;39563002]EDIT: tl;dr where you draw the line is a subjective criterion[/QUOTE]
Which kinda devolves it into meaninglessness.
But I'd admit I haven't really presented what I was saying very well.
[editline]12th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39563042]First of all you said races don't even exist. You didn't say "on scientific level". And for the discussion at hand it didn't need to be a scientific term. Your comment was irrelevant at best.[/QUOTE]
Well obviously race and racism does exist beyond a scientific level otherwise we would have never been talking about it because it because it wouldn't even exist in our experienced universe in the manner in which we use it when discussing prejudices to muslims. And the fact that I said that it doesn't exist at a scientific level yet was still discussing it proves that I believed it to be a social construct. Why do I need to point that out? It was self evident.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39563042]Second, it's not purely "social construct". There are biological differences between races. You're not fucking telling me that color of skin is a social construct. [/QUOTE]
Because skin colour represents such a small biological difference that it doesn't constitute as a scientific marker for establishing differences races. There is more biological difference between individuals of any skin colour than as separated into blocs based entirely on skin colour. Ever wonder why we don't classify iguanas into difference races based on their immense variety of skin colour? Because there was no social pretext to do so.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39563042]Third, I have never tied races with subspecies. You and wikipedia did. Tried to show how there are no races because there are no subspecies, which is something completely different.[/QUOTE]
Again keep up with context. Why would I be tying the issue of race, racism and muslims under subspecies? You just saw a single word from a stub quote from a multi-thousand word wiki article and decided to take the entire thread off onto some bizarre tandem. Pedantic at best.
I am ashamed to admit but I used to be Islam-phobic until I met Muslims at my school. Also most of the information I got were from incredibly biased websites, so that changed my perception a bit.
I think that the real issue doesn't lie whether most terrorists are Muslims but rather that most terrorists are poor.
[I]If all terrorist threats are carried out by people, then we should ban all people from entering planes.[/I]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
