mac_bolan00: racist, stupid, racist, and can't work the shift key

[mac_bolan00]

@purplehorseshoe

How starkis this person, or thisone?

starkly mestiza or mulata. your point? :rolleyes:

[Lemur866]

Are people from India and Pakistan white or asian? How about Afghans? Kazakhs? Iranians? Iraqis? Are Egyptians white or negro? How about Algerians?

A racial classification system that tosses two billion Indians, Central Asians, Middle Easterners and North Africans into the “other” category seems to have a few problems.

[mac_bolan00]

@Lemur866

Are people from India and Pakistan white or asian? How about Afghans? Kazakhs? Iranians? Iraqis? Are Egyptians white or negro? How about Algerians?

A racial classification system that tosses two billion Indians, Central Asians, Middle Easterners and North Africans into the “other” category seems to have a few problems.

depends. people in iran, afghanistan and northern india show strong caucasian influence. millenia of mixing is obvious. egypt, again a strong mix. some white pride people postulate a mediterranean white people who spread out all the way to northern india and have long since disappeared as a distinct group.

[orcenio]

@Candyman74

African American isn’t a racial group. African descent might be, but the fact that someone is in America has nothing to do with race.

Every grouping is a racial group. Racial groups are not some universal constant. It’s short hand for whatever group of humans you personally want to group. Races change from culture to culture, person to person, epoch to epoch. There is no agreement in the number of races (2-2,000), factors of delimination (hair colour, eye shape/colour, skin colour, geography, nose shape, etc), degree of difference (1/2/3/4/5/6 shades of difference), etc.

It literally means whatever you want it to mean, whenever you want to mean it, in however way you decide to image it. Your races are a social construct.

[Candyman74]

@orcenio

Every grouping is a racial group. Racial groups are not some universal constant. It’s short hand for whatever group of humans you personally want to group. Races change from culture to culture, person to person, epoch to epoch. There is no agreement in the number of races (2-2,000), factors of delimination (hair colour, eye shape/colour, skin colour, geography, nose shape, etc), degree of difference (1/2/3/4/5/6 shades of difference), etc.

It literally means whatever you want it to mean, whenever you want to mean it, in however way you decide to image it. Your races are a social construct.

So me and my next door neighbour are a racial group?

[orcenio]

@Candyman74

So me and my next door neighbour are a racial group?

Yes. If you want to use geography as your the delimiting factor then your neighbourhood/village/city/province/country/region/continent are all racial groups depending on your personally arbitrary degree of contrast. Whip out a map and start drawing lines… go ahead. You’ll get plenty of people in dis/agreement with your arbitrary races.

[An_Gadai]

@mac_bolan00

starkly mestiza or mulata. your point? :rolleyes:

Yes the second one is clearly quadroon.

[Candyman74]

@orcenio

Yes. If you want to use geography as your the delimiting factor then your neighbourhood/village/city/province/country/region/continent are all racial groups depending on your personally arbitrary degree of contrast. Whip out a map and start drawing lines… go ahead. You’ll get plenty of people in dis/agreement with your arbitrary races.

So essentially your position is that the word “race” has no scientific meaning (other than the cultural and often derogatory connotations)?

Works for me.

[orcenio]

OK

[Chen019]

@Candyman74

So essentially your position is that the word “race” has no scientific meaning (other than the cultural and often derogatory connotations)?

Works for me.

Well, and in forensic anthropology, medicine, pharmaceutical research and population genetics.

[orcenio]

@Chen019

Well, and in forensic anthropology, medicine, pharmaceutical research and population genetics.

I know it’s hard to provide a relevant quote for us to dissect when you haven’t even provided a point of contention this time, but you should, at least, try to be mediocre.

[Chen019]

@orcenio

I know it’s hard to provide a relevant quote for us to dissect when you haven’t even provided a point of contention this time, but you should, at least, try to be mediocre.

Why the snide comment? What’s your problem? The previous comment said race had apparently no scientific meaning. Well, that isn’t correct if you want to look at forensic anthropology, medicine, pharmaceutical research or population genetics. If you can’t be bothered to read the paper discussing the usefulness and importance of race in medicine and biomedical research then I don’t see why I should spoon feed you.

I’ve also linked to the actual Great Debates thread on a meaningful biological definition of race. If you or Candyman74 want to debate the topic then why don’t you post there - that is what the Great Debates thread is for after all.

[Chen019]

@Candyman74

So essentially your position is that the word “race” has no scientific meaning (other than the cultural and often derogatory connotations)?

As requested by Orcenio, here are some quotations from the paper by Risch et al, that I linked to earlier in the thread:

Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians [5]. The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level…

Two arguments against racial categorization as defined above are firstly that race has no biological basis [1,3], and secondly that there are racial differences but they are merely cosmetic, reflecting superficial characteristics such as skin color and facial features that involve a very small number of genetic loci that were selected historically; these superficial differences do not reflect any additional genetic distinctiveness [2]. A response to the first of these points depends on the definition of ‘biological’. If biological is defined as genetic then, as detailed above, a decade or more of population genetics research has documented genetic, and therefore biological, differentiation among the races. This conclusion was most recently reinforced by the analysis of Wilson et al. [2]. If biological is defined by susceptibility to, and natural history of, a chronic disease, then again numerous studies over past decades have documented biological differences among the races. In this context, it is difficult to imagine that such differences are not meaningful. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a definition of ‘biological’ that does not lead to racial differentiation, except perhaps one as extreme as speciation…

Because of the large amount of variation observed within races versus between races, some commentators have denied genetic differentiation between the races; for example, “Genetic data … show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world.” [18]. This assertion is both counter-intuitive and factually incorrect [12,13]. If it were true, it would be impossible to create discrete clusters of humans (that end up corresponding to the major races), for example as was done by Wilson et al. [2], with even as few as 20 randomly chosen genetic markers. Two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian.

[orcenio]

@Chen019

Why the snide comment? What’s your problem? The previous comment said race had apparently no scientific meaning. Well, that isn’t correct if you want to look at forensic anthropology, medicine, pharmaceutical research or population genetics. If you can’t be bothered to read the paper discussing the usefulness and importance of race in medicine and biomedical research then I don’t see why I should spoon feed you.

You have had literally hundreds of papers dropped on you* showing that it is folly to make the claim that scientists in forensic anthropology, medicine, pharmaceutical research or population genetics are preaching that “racial groups” are not social constructs but genetic categories. The snide comments comes from your wilful ignorance.

I’ve also linked to the actual Great Debates thread on a meaningful biological definition of race. If you or Candyman74 want to debate the topic then why don’t you post there - that is what the Great Debates thread is for after all.

How about I call you Nazi scum and watch a little Steven Cobert?

*Posts/articles not all dropped on Chen and list not exhaustive.

[Bryan_Ekers]

“You said ‘racist’ twice.”

“I like race…”

[Chen019]

@orcenio

You have had literally hundreds of papers dropped on you* showing that it is folly to make the claim that scientists in forensic anthropology, medicine, pharmaceutical research or population genetics are preaching that “racial groups” are not social constructs but genetic categories.

Social constructs and biological or genetic groups aren’t mutually exclusive. You could say that all animal subspecies are social constructs. Of course they are, people made up categories which map their observations. The human species isn’t special or unique, it has races or varieties just as there are in most other animal groups.

Also, in case you missed it, I provided you with some quotations from Nazi scum such as Hua Tang, Neil Risch, Esteban Burchard and Elad Ziv for you to dissect, as requested:

Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians [5]. The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level…

Two arguments against racial categorization as defined above are firstly that race has no biological basis [1,3], and secondly that there are racial differences but they are merely cosmetic, reflecting superficial characteristics such as skin color and facial features that involve a very small number of genetic loci that were selected historically; these superficial differences do not reflect any additional genetic distinctiveness [2]. A response to the first of these points depends on the definition of ‘biological’. If biological is defined as genetic then, as detailed above, a decade or more of population genetics research has documented genetic, and therefore biological, differentiation among the races. This conclusion was most recently reinforced by the analysis of Wilson et al. [2]. If biological is defined by susceptibility to, and natural history of, a chronic disease, then again numerous studies over past decades have documented biological differences among the races. In this context, it is difficult to imagine that such differences are not meaningful. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a definition of ‘biological’ that does not lead to racial differentiation, except perhaps one as extreme as speciation…

Because of the large amount of variation observed within races versus between races, some commentators have denied genetic differentiation between the races; for example, “Genetic data … show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world.” [18]. This assertion is both counter-intuitive and factually incorrect [12,13]. If it were true, it would be impossible to create discrete clusters of humans (that end up corresponding to the major races), for example as was done by Wilson et al. [2], with even as few as 20 randomly chosen genetic markers. Two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian.

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

By the way, there’s way too much documentation in this thread. Aren’t we supposed to be pitting wozzisname? Otherwise this is going to get moved to GD.

@mac_bolan00

depends. people in iran, afghanistan and northern india show strong caucasian influence. millenia of mixing is obvious. egypt, again a strong mix. some white pride people postulate a mediterranean white people who spread out all the way to northern india and have long since disappeared as a distinct group.

That’s because they want to call themselves Aryans.

Also, can you not operate a shift key, are you a cockroach, or what?

[mac_bolan00]

@Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension

By the way, there’s way too much documentation in this thread. Aren’t we supposed to be pitting wozzisname? Otherwise this is going to get moved to GD.

That’s because they want to call themselves Aryans.

Also, can you not operate a shift key, are you a cockroach, or what?

that is not why they like to call themselves aryans. go to stormfront if you want to discuss that (i find it a petty notion.)

i got the habit of small caps from my sister who is as quirky as i but likely smarter than most of you. but a fault is a fault. ignoring the shift key is my only crime, AFAIK.

[Dr.Drake]

@mac_bolan00

i got the habit of small caps from my sister who is as quirky as i but likely smarter than most of you. but a fault is a fault. ignoring the shift key is my only crime, AFAIK.

Ignoring the shift key isn’t quirky, it’s boorish. It shows that you disdain the group you are interacting with.

Your other faults include (as the thread title indicates) racism and an inability to explain yourself. I still don’t know what you mean by an “Afro-Asian slum.”

[mac_bolan00]

why don’t you just treat it as a playful post in the context of the original thread title “hypenated american?” thay way you don’t have to pretend you know how to debate or indeed, pit with sufficient wit.