| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10163 Posts
On June 09 2016 16:29 NukeD wrote: Why wouldnt it be genes? I think genes have a huge part to do with it. As far i am aware, it's acknowledged by scientific research that race and racial identity are social constructions, not genetic differences. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 09 2016 17:26 WhiteDog wrote: It's basically a proven fact that genes are of no concern in regards to skin color. I'll argue in length later if you will, I need to go into work. You definitely will have to be more specific about that. While I've seen plenty of reputable sources arguing that race is the wrong way to describe meaningful genetic differences between people (albeit too often in a preachy, overcompensating-for-racism sort of way), quite a substantial portion argues that those meaningful differences do exist and they are at the very least correlated with race due to common origins (race and certain genetic features are often both the result of a specific ancestry, for example). Given how varied in meaning similar statements of "race isn't genetic" seem to be, from "race doesn't exist biologically and is a purely social construct" to "race is genetically important but it isn't the best descriptive word" to everything in between, I'd also like you to clarify. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On June 09 2016 16:47 GreenHorizons wrote: No I'm familiar we disagree on the term, I meant even using that version. If a black person doesn't hire black people because they are black, it's still racist, for example. You seem pretty astute, so that should be pretty obvious to you. If that's not "racist", I'm curious what you call it? The inbred thing is because darker phenotypical features are dominant, so without a specific effort (to avoid inbreeding), "whiteness" will eventually dilute itself into a darker shade and "pure" populations will be working with ever shrinking gene pools. Do go on... How do ou see genes playing a role? From my limited exposure to black people i could tell they act a lot more on impulse that we do. On average. User was warned for this post | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24335 Posts
On June 09 2016 18:13 NukeD wrote: From my limited exposure to black people i could tell they act a lot more on impulse that we do. On average. That's not satire is it? Anyway, anyone else find it odd that all the media is reporting 100% in California but there are millions of votes to count? | ||
|
Surth
Germany456 Posts
On June 09 2016 18:13 NukeD wrote: From my limited exposure to black people i could tell they act a lot more on impulse that we do. On average. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
No its not. I am not saying its a bad or a good thing. I just think they are different on average then us and in the way that they are more prone to act or speak on impulse than us. Why is it so terrifying what I said? I'm not trying to undermine anyone here or say that we should treat anyone differently because of that. So in your opinion we are the same? | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
The problem here is that you automatically assume im a racist because of saying races are different. Im not. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24335 Posts
On June 09 2016 18:32 NukeD wrote: No its not. I am not saying its a bad or a good thing. I just think they are different on average then us. Why is it so terrifying what I said? I'm not trying to undermine anyone here or say that we should treat anyone differently because of that. So in your opinion we are the same? Your experiences are not the makings of a rigorous investigation. Terrifying wouldn't be the word I would choose. My opinion is not that we are all "the same" but that skin color is a poor way to assess genetic differences, especially as far as they influence behavior. Might as well break out the phrenology bust while you're at it. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On June 09 2016 18:52 GreenHorizons wrote: Your experiences are not the makings of a rigorous investigation. Terrifying wouldn't be the word I would choose. My opinion is not that we are all "the same" but that skin color is a poor way to assess genetic differences, especially as far as they influence behavior. Might as well break out the phrenology bust while you're at it. I wasnt aware im using skill color to asses the genetic differences. As if i said that skin color is the cause of our differences. I did not, skin color has nothing to do with it, it is just an indication that we are different at best. I used skin color just to pinpoint a group of people I wanted to talk about, and did in no way say that the skin color has anything to do with it. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11969 Posts
On June 09 2016 17:28 Godwrath wrote: As far i am aware, it's acknowledged by scientific research that race and racial identity are social constructions, not genetic differences. You do not understand what you are talking about. I am not certain if you actually believe what you wrote, or if you want to make some point in a sarcastic way, but in both cases you do not know what you are talking about. No one disputes that phenotypes are heavily influenced by genetics. If two light skinned, blond, blue eyed scandinavians have children, chances are high that those children will also be light skinned, blue eyed and blond (Not certain of course). If they have a child with black skin and dark hair, it is very reasonable to assume that that is not their biological child. Similarly, if two dark skinned people with dark hair and brown eyes have a child, that child will almost certainly not be blond, blue eyed and light skinned. What people say when they say that race is not a biological feature, but a social construct, is that those phenotypes are not distinct, but parts of a continuous spectrum. People put arbitrary lines on that spectrum and state that "if your skin is up to this dark, you are white", "If skin has this colour, your are asian", etc... But those distinctions are utterly arbitrary. You might as well put the lines differenciating between certain "races" at different spots, and in fact the same person on the border might depending on context be viewed as "white" or "hispanic", or whatever. It becomes even more weird if you put other things like religion into your concept of race, and suddenly a dude who looks just like the next white guy is not a white guy, but jewish for some reason. People often like to argue against straw men. No one claims that there are not visible distinctions between people of different heritage, that is obviously stupid. What people say is that a) there is no scientific way to classify human beings, who are part of a big continous spectrum, into distinct different races, and b) judging peoples character or intelligence based on prejudices based on their phenotype is not based in any science and irrational. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On June 09 2016 19:11 Simberto wrote: a) there is no scientific way to classify human beings, who are part of a big continous spectrum, into distinct different races, and Just curious; can we scientifically clasiffy birds? I can see they all fall into the same line of logic you proposed so just extrapolating from that argument I would say that we can't. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11969 Posts
| ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On June 09 2016 19:34 NukeD wrote: Just curious; can we scientifically clasiffy birds? I can see they all fall into the same line of logic you proposed so just extrapolating from that argument I would say that we can't. The most basic way to differentiate species is on the basis of reproductive compatibility. If two parakeets variants cannot produce offspring then they are considered separate species. This is a simplification but it generally works. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46386 Posts
The specificity of humans would be equivalent to organizing wood ducks. Not all birds, not all ducks, but specifically the "wood duck". So sure, we can organize them by color if we wanted, but we've done almost all of the biological/ "real scientific" grouping up to that point, where we've broken down mammals and birds over and over again to arrive at a specific species of mammal or bird. And as ZeaL said, it comes down to basic reproductive compatibility. All humans can reproduce with each other, and all wood ducks can reproduce with each other, but not all mammals (and not all birds) can reproduce with each other. That's one of the main reasons why we end up as specific as we do with our classifications. Therefore, when you ask this question about birds: On June 09 2016 19:34 NukeD wrote: Just curious; can we scientifically clasiffy birds? I can see they all fall into the same line of logic you proposed so just extrapolating from that argument I would say that we can't. That's akin to asking "Can we scientifically classify mammals". | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9331 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On June 09 2016 16:29 NukeD wrote: Why wouldnt it be genes? I think genes have a huge part to do with it. Did you seriously just argue "black people are more violent, and it's because of their genes"? | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9331 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On June 09 2016 19:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Humans are all the same species (homo sapiens), whereas birds are merely the same class (aves). Classes are split into orders, then families, then genera (plural of genus), then species... so there are many ways to differentiate and classify what we mean by "bird". "Bird" is on the same level as "Mammal", and there are many ways to classify and group different mammals based on traits. The specificity of humans would be equivalent to organizing wood ducks. Not all birds, not all ducks, but specifically the "wood duck". So sure, we can organize them by color if we wanted, but we've done almost all of the biological/ "real scientific" grouping up to that point, where we've broken down mammals and birds over and over again to arrive at a specific species of mammal or bird. And as ZeaL said, it comes down to basic reproductive compatibility. All humans can reproduce with each other, and all wood ducks can reproduce with each other, but not all mammals (and not all birds) can reproduce with each other. That's one of the main reasons why we end up as specific as we do with our classifications. There are more differences than the umbrella of species. There are real identifiable and useful biological/medical differences between disparate groups of people. Anyone who works in the medical field and aren't woefully ignorant knows as much. As a quick article by a UCLA scientist: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38950/title/On-Race-and-Medicine/ Hopefully we can get to a point where we can provide care on a truly individual genetic basis, but "racial" short-hands are often beneficial in medical treatments (not all treatments of course, but this should go without saying...., but it's better to be precise I suppose). | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46386 Posts
On June 09 2016 19:55 Wegandi wrote: There are more differences than the umbrella of species. There are real identifiable and useful biological/medical differences between disparate groups of people. Anyone who works in the medical field and aren't woefully ignorant knows as much. As a quick article by a UCLA scientist: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38950/title/On-Race-and-Medicine/ Hopefully we can get to a point where we can provide care on a truly individual genetic basis, but "racial" short-hands are often beneficial in medical treatments (not all treatments of course, but this should go without saying...., but it's better to be precise I suppose). I agree. I was just trying to clarify the tiers of specificity between mammals and birds, since humans vs. birds aren't even close to equal classification levels  | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
OSC
Escore
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
RSL Revival
Serral vs Rogue
BlizzCon
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
