Perhaps this concession helped to educate you:
It’s not a concession- yes, it’s conceivable that there could be a genetic component. It’s also conceivable that it could be a massive conspiracy on the part of all white people to keep the black man down.
There’s the same amount of evidence for both possibilities- none.
Brazil, I’m sorry, there is no ‘debating’ with you. You are unwilling or unable to process information at variance with your beliefs. Enjoy your beliefs. I’d sooner try to teach a pig to sing. Since you can’t absorb new information, your ignorance will remain unmolested by anyone in this thread (or on this Board, or in life…)
That’s still not winning, that’s ‘frequently wrong, but never uncertain’.
You can’t seriously be stupid enough to propose this as a serious argument.
All of the people in your “Race 1” are humans and have genes in common, but they would also have those same genes in common with all other humans. Thus if you knew which genes “Race 1” has in common, and were given the genetic profiles of a random selection of all humans, you would be completely unable to determine which of those humans belong to “Race 1” based on their genes.
Alternatively, one could read your statement as acknowledging that it is impossible to accurately define humans into genetic groups corresponding to socio-culturally defined “races”, and thus all of humanity is actually one race. But I doubt this is what you meant.
How on earth would (2) be possible? Given that it’s been proven ad nauseum in this thread that “blacks” is not a discrete or identifiable genetic group.
“You can’t seriously be stupid enough to propose this as a serious argument.”
New around here?
Heart of Dorkness offered the definition, not me. I’m simply applying the definition he offered. If you think it’s a stupid definition (and I would agree with you), then take it up with him.
I agree 100% with this.
My point was that according to Heart of Dorkness’ definition, “blacks” clearly qualify as a “genetic group.”
It’s very easily possible. Do you agree that there exist some genetic traits which are not evenly distributed among the 3 Races I defined earlier?
What’s your test for whether a group is “discrete or identifiable”? And are you willing to apply that same test to other groups?
Of course there is, but you have to lay out your position clearly and respond to what I actually say (as opposed to what you wish or imagine I said).
As a practical matter, I realize that that for a lot of people, this means that there is no “debating” with me, but there it is.
Or perhaps the mote is in your eye not mine.
At any rate, I simply pointed out something Heart of Dorkness said. Why is it so hard for you to process such information? Hmmmmm.
and none of us can debate you the right way? Seriously…it’s you.
If I met anyone who could lay out the “anti-racist” position in a way that stood up to scrutiny, then I would change my mind.
Let me ask you this – is there anyone on my side of the debate who has presented his position and responded to your arguments in a way that you agree was honest, unambiguous, and clear?
But the 3 “races” are not discrete genetic groupings- many “black” populations are closer to the other 2 “races” than to other “blacks”. And there is absolutely no evidence for any genetic traits (relating to intelligence) not being “evenly distributed among the 3 races”. Why would anyone believe it with no genetic evidence?
No. But then, it’s just you and NDD as far as I recall.
Actually, it’s clear that you just didn’t understand his definition, and then you made up a crappy example that only serves to illustrate how little you understand it.
Heart of Dorkness said (my emphasis added):
You then made up an arbitrary group that doesn’t have anything in common (other than being human). Yes, congratulations, you’ve figured out that all of humanity is one “genetic group”.
And, as has been repeatedly shown (and ignored by you and NDD), the only way you can accurately, scientifically, group all “blacks” into one genetic group, is if that group also includes all other humans. There are no genes that are shared by all “blacks” that are not also shared by everyone else in the world.
Actually, I’ve been a member since 2002 and lurked for several years before that. I guess after reading all 45 pages of this thread it’s pointless for me to respond, but after HOD’s great post and literally banging my head when I read b84’s response, I had to respond.
You’ve never debated the race and intelligence issue with anyone besides me and NDD?
I have a hard time believing that.
Anyway, you’re “maybe it’s you” is just another argumentum ad populum. Popular beliefs are sometimes wrong. And well-founded beliefs do not require argumentum ad populum.
Of course, that is why we depend on experts to tell us what is the recommended path of action even if the experts do not follow what most people think about a subject…
Except that the brazil nut has already reported that even that is useless to him.
Sure, and that satisfies his definition. His definition does not contain an exception for traits shared by all humans.
Here’s what I think you are saying:
According to you a group is a “genetic group” if (and only if) (1) everyone in the group shares a particular gene; and (2) everyone outside the group lacks that gene.
Did I understand you correctly?
Oh, and do you agree that there exist some genetic traits which are not evenly distributed among the 3 Races I defined earlier?
I would say that a group is only a “genetic group” (or “race”), if either all or at least a large majority of the group shares particular gene(s) in common. Note: this is not the case for all “blacks” as defined by you and NDD
You did not actually define “3 races”, you merely asserted they exist. A definition would actually, you know, define the groups. There is no actual scientific, genetic evidence to show that “3 races” or even 5, or 7, or 9 races exist. Genetically speaking, humanity is either one race, or hundreds.
And although I did (perhaps regrettably) join this thread late in the game, I have no interest in responding to your requests to answer further questions which have already been repeatedly refuted by others. If I reiterate their refutations (ha!), you would only ignore and/or handwave them away yet again.
Crap! On reflection, can I change my answer? I want to take out the caveat.
I would say that if you want to define someone as belong to a “genetic group”, then they should carry the gene(s) that define that group. What’s the alternative? It would be stupid to define a group by specific genetic markers and then include people in that group who don’t have that marker.
Which people outside the group lack? Simple question.
Nonsense, I defined them very precisely in Post #1148. Please refrain from misrepresenting my position.
Suit yourself, but I have no interest in engaging with people who hide their positions behind a cloak of ambiguity.
Nobody in this thread has (1) provided a precise set of criteria to support the claim that blacks “don’t exist” or “don’t exist as a genetic group” or whatever the claim is; and (2) applied the exact same criteria to to other groups, such as ethnic groups or families.
That’s pretty rich coming from a guy who obviously hasn’t read the thread but thinks he has.
I’m sorry, I thought your question applied to this thread, I may have debated it to some extent before. Mostly I read The Bell Curve and the book which followed refuting it, whatever that was called.
Waenara, believe me I know the feeling, it is a difficult impulse to resist.
Ok, and is there a gene that defines “Ashkenazim”? A gene that defines “Ethnic French”? A gene that defines “Han Chinese”?
If so, what are they? And if not, do you agree that “Ashkenazim”; “Ethnic French”; and “Han Chinese” are not genetic groups by your definition?