are there differences between the races, e.g. in IQ and bone structure/density?
Does race exist?
yep
>>7674733
I got told to come here because I'd get recked by /sci/
pls wreck desu sempai
Yes and yes.
Why do we have to have this thread every fucking week?
>>7674736
Oh, so you were talking shit about things you know nothing about?
Please remove yourself from the genepool regardless of your race.
>>7674741
am I to take it that you think there are no differences between the races, in IQ or in bone structure/density, and that you think(and can prove) that race doesn't exist?
If so, please prove it to me
>>7674726
Yes. Obviously different populations will either develop, have a specific clustering of, or overexpress traits relative to another population. Some of these traits might be novel. Interbreeding with the neanderthal was definitely novel and left an appreciable difference in immune system function.
Look, this isn't hard. It's just people who make it hard. People reject race on the basis of intelligence and claim it doesn't exist, then out the other side of their face spout on about how curious it is that eg many kenyans and jamaicans have a mechanical advantage in their lower limb construction and composition result in superior sprinting and jumping performance. Racial difference exist, and anyone who's ever been outside knows it, deep down.
They themselves have highly developed heuristics to predict behavioral tendencies and thought processes, based on superficial traits. Whether they like it or not. And you know what? Whether they like it or not, those rough rules work and yield highly accurate results.
Race doesn't have to be a bad thing. If we could all just accept how nature works, and accept that no matter what, sometimes, we're going to be inferior. Sometimes we're going to be born with an innate capacity to be superior in a given task. And that's just how it works. Both macro, and micro. It's time to get over this infantile garbage, accept people for who and what they are, and stop trying to push a delusion of equality that doesn't exist. It only gets in the way of people learning to get along and pursue what they really want and develop themselves to their best.
![f1-fansite-com-hd-wallpaper-2012-monaco-f1-gp_26[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ZY0jaP7.jpg "f1-fansite-com-hd-wallpaper-2012-monaco-f1-gp_26[1].jpg")
> Does races exist
They do.
>>7674746
I don't care what side of the argument you on. These threads are not /sci/.
>am I to take it that you think there are no differences between the races, in IQ or in bone structure/density, and that you think(and can prove) that race doesn't exist?
No, /sci/ doesn't care about feelings. The consensus on /sci/ is towards the evidence that there are obviously differences on average and genetics has an obvious casually phenomenological effect
>Academia performance is largely genetic:
http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150723/srep11713/full/srep11713.html
>IQ
http://www.unz.com/isteve/test-score-gaps-in-california-increasingly-driven-by-race-not-class/
>This paper presents new and surprising findings on the relationship between race and SAT scores. The findings are based on the population of California residents who applied for admission to the University of California from 1994 through 2011, a sample of over 1.1 million students. The UC data show that socioeconomic background factors – family income, parental education, and race/ethnicity – account for a large and growing share of the variance in students’ SAT scores over the past twenty years. More than a third of the variance in SAT scores can now be predicted by factors known at students’ birth, up from a quarter of the variance in 1994. Of those factors, moreover, race has become the strongest predictor. Rather than declining in salience, race and ethnicity are now more important than either family income or parental education in accounting for test score differences.
>>7674754
>Differences in bone structure:
>http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/1_0CombinedArticles.htm
>Measuring human physical characteristics-anthropometry-was the main research activity of the first anthropologists early in the 1800s. A major focus for the early anthropometrists was the skull. Cranial capacity, jaw structure, the angle of the brow, and other criteria were analyzed in great detail. Although the focus and application of physical anthropology have changed from its early days, anthropometry remains a useful research tool for paleontologists engaged in the search for the origins of the humans species. Variations in skeletal shape and bone structure are vital clues to our prehistoric roots.
>Some obvious traits are skin color, body size, and eye color. Less obvious, but more easy to quantify are biochemical traits such as blood type and genetic differences.
>anthropometry remains a useful research tool for paleontologists engaged in the search for the origins of the humans species.
>remains a useful research tool for paleontologists
>>7674758
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_anthropology#Determination_of_ancestry
>Determination of ancestry
>The determination of an individual's ancestry is typically grouped into three historical groups, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. However, the use of these classifications is becoming much harder as the rate of interracial marriages increases and markers become less defined.[33] By measuring distances between landmarks on the skull as well as the size and shape of specific bones anthropologists can use a series of equations to estimate ancestry. Typically, the maxilla is used to help anthropologists determine an individual's ancestry due to the three basic shapes, hyperbolic, parabolic, and rounded, belonging to the three historical ancestries, Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid respectively.[34] In addition to the maxilla, the zygomatic arch and the nasal opening have been used to narrow down possible ancestry.[35] A program called FORDISC has been created that will calculate the most likely ancestry using complex mathematical formulas.[36] This program is continually updated with new information from known individuals to maintain a database of current populations and their respective measurements.
>Race is a useful too in modern diagnostic medicine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health
Now fuck off.
>>7674754
>These threads are not /sci/.
the science behind racial differences is not /sci/ ?
why?
also, thanks for the info.
In particular I would like a source for a claim made that the different races have a different number of bones, could anyone provide that?
>>7674763
>why?
Because it's perpetuated by retards like you who misinterpret everything we tell them and twist it to fit their stupid political arguments.
Why don't you read an anthropology textbook before making these shitty threads?
Sage
>>7674767
what is perpetuated by retards like me?
How is race scientifically defined? Is there an algorithm to objectively determine the race of someone?
>>7674767
That's not an argument on why races are not science. Race is a context belonging to biology, which is a science and has nothing to do with politics.
![dnahero-kylebkg[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/s3Es1FV.jpg "dnahero-kylebkg[1].jpg")
>>7674774
Yes. It's called DNA testing.
http://dna.ancestry.com/
>>7674770
>please tell me i'm superior
This concept of race is just a modern try at tribalism. There are a plethora of ethnicities and they all come with their own benefits and deficiencies. If you want to stick to those who share a more common ancestry as you than go ahead.
>>7674760
>Now fuck off.
this is the way you treat genuine scientific curiosity?
even after providing info that proves I am correct?
why so hostile bro?
>>7674788
Nobody even mentioned something like that...
>>7674788
race and ethnicity are not the same thing anon
I do agree with you that each race has strengths and weaknesses though
yeah, and like the other anon says, I never asked you to say if any race is superior overall
>>7674788
If you separate any kind of people into groups, on average some groups will do certain tasks better than the other group. You don't need to be a scientist to know that.
>>7674736
>I got told to come here because I'd get recked by /sci/
We have about 1 sjw who hopes to sound like he knows what he's talking about by being preemptively aggressive, then disappears after being replied to.
Actually you were probably talking to the same kind of person on your board, because "go to /sci/ you'll get rekt" is the kind of lazy/cowardly argument they would make
>>7674799
fair enough
I would still like to know if the claim made to me, that different races have different numbers of bones, is correct. Thanks
>>7674824
I don't know, but to my knowledge the answer is "no". I could easily be wrong.
Different individuals have different numbers of muscle groups though. A good chunk of the human population is missing a small muscle in the upper back / neck, which doesn't appear to have much functional impact. I don't remember if it was more correlated with a certain ancestry, nor wt the muscle is called. Don't really feel like looking it up.
>>7674831
>Different individuals have different numbers of muscle groups though. A good chunk of the human population is missing a small muscle in the upper back / neck, which doesn't appear to have much functional impact.
that's interesting, thanks. Do you know what it is called?
>>7674834
This is one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmaris_longus_muscle
I'm trying to figure a good search term to identify the other. Being able to picture its location apparently doesn't help searching.
>>7674839
that's very interesting anon, thank you
>>7674839
Ah, there we go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levator_claviculae_muscle
These are also relevant, one appears to be racially correlated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_occipital_nerve
Others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantaris_muscle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramidalis_muscle
>>7674844
>occipital nerve
Woops. I'm half asleep.
http://www.anatomyatlases.org/AnatomicVariants/MuscularSystem/Text/O/08Occipitalis.shtml
gestation length, age of first tooth, age they start speaking, age they start walking, age of puberty onset, LENGTH OF LIFE
bone density, bone chemical composition, shape of pelvis, angle of thigh to pelvis, ratio of leg to torso, ratio of arm to torso, ratrio of fast to slow twitch muscle fibres
type of earwax, number of odor producing sweat glands, can grow a beard, amount of testostyrone, shape and size of teeth
shape of skull, size of brain, level of folding in the superannular layer of the brain, IQ, net present time sense
could anyone confirm or deny these claims? TIA
>>7674859
no one?
>>7674760
>Now fuck off.
why you say dis if you agree with the post you are replying to?
>>7674960
His rectum is experiencing frustration.
>>7674961
I get that he might say that if he had proved the poster wrong, but he had just agreed with him...
confused
>>7674733
I could not help but notice your png was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your png.
Your png is now optimized.
>>7674726
I could not help but notice your gif was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your gif.
Your gif is now optimized.
>>7674747
really wish our mods had some balls and stickied this to end the question once and for all
rather just the whole thread
>>7674790
Like mentioned in this thread, the question now carries all sorts of weight to it that people add themselves to
>>7675211
thanks!
>>7675211
how could you tell?
OP here, thanks for answering my questions and being so reasonable
sorry if you get these threads a lot, it's my first one
didn't mean to shit up you're board
>>7675211
Gif with the motion blur built in.
Is that a "thing"? Helps somehow? Curious.
>>7676557
he somehow took 0.18 mb off, but more importantly, he somehow knew it wasn't optimized, what manner of witchcraft is this?
>>7676614
>Instead what we have is population genetics.
lmao they aren't disjoint.
There's always this dishonest assumption by left wing academics that by making statements about a race or a group of races, you are therefore automatically also making a bunch of extra outlandish claims like for example "the two races are totally distinct" or "there are genes belonging to one race that no other member of any race has and this is what defines that one race"
I believe the reason why left wing academics implicitly make this assumption is so that then they can simply argue against or disprove one of those outlandish claims , and thus relieve themselves of the responsibility of tackling the real claim.
As an example:
>there is a decent amount of evidence that sub-Saharan Africans have a lower mean IQ than Europeans and that there is a biological reason explaining part of this mean difference.
"oh yeah? well race doesn't exist "
so claiming that "race" is different from "ethnic populations who have lived continuously in a particular geographical region and interbred for say 5000+ years" is a red herring.
It doesn't have any impact on the kind of statements we are interested in making.
>>7676634
A population is just any group of humans that you group by any criteria. The point is to study differences between your populations. You can take two different villages from the same tribe and label each one as a separate population. You could do the same with cities. However, most people would (due to traditional notions of race) consider those tribes to be the same race and they would object to the notion of a race of New Yorkers. Of course, just because you can group people by some arbitrary means and then study genetic differences between them it doesn't mean that your grouping is the only grouping that captures this difference, nor that even such a grouping really exists.
Suppose you look at a population consisting of the people living in wealthy neighborhoods and another population consisting of people living in ghettos in Chicago. I'm sure you would find genetic differences between the groups. Does this infer the existence of a "poor race" and a "rich race"? No, but it's still interesting and useful to study, hence populations.
Unfortunately giving a rigorous objective way of defining the notion of traditional races through genetics has proven to be pretty much impossible and as such has been abandoned by all of it's academic proponents (minus a few bloggers who incorrectly apply machine learning techniques to the data).
>>7674726
>>7676614
ACKSCHUALLY
>>7676634
I came on here to tell you the other anon is right in that population genetics is a better assessment than race.
A big issue with race is typecasting them with particular traits. This may seem okay for the short term but is bad for the long term where the populations in question goes through a shift in characteristics due to gene admixture, gene stratification, region change and diet.
So "race" is more a short term snapshot in time of a given population. While population genetics tries to go beyond a simple snapshot and investigates the morphology of said population over a long period of time (past and present).
For example there obviously was no "african american" population a thousand years ago so analysis of blacks at said time would be strictly based on african/ middle eastern regions. So skeleton and IQ measurements would be different and possibly less broad.
Same goes for europeans, modern populations of Europe are different than those say 4,000 years ago. And with the influx of syrian and middle east refugees, europeans wIll be genetically different a thousand years later maybe even sooner.
>>7674726
>>7676796
>that last sentence
Complete non sequitur
>>7676796
>belives in evolution
>thinks all men are equal
science is racist stop denying it.
>>7676796
>engineer commenting on topics he doesn't understand
I wonder if he posts on /sci/ too?
>>7676945
no, he posts on /x/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asnaykgZE8M
>>7676945
He's not an engineering, that would require him to actually practice engineering. He's a memeing television personality.
>>7676672
well the reason why neither of those examples are really interesting or the same is because the populations in both of those examples would have nearly identical allele distributions.
races are human populations that have been geographically and thus genetically seperated for a period of say 5000+ years and so have had the time to evolve, have different alleles be selected for, genetically drift, however you want to call it, and this is why they have significantly different allele distributions.
>the other anon is right in that population genetics is a better assessment than race.
You missed the point of the post you're replying to. It's disingenuous to act like they're different. It's pure semantics.
people of subsaharan african extraction are colloquially called black, and one would be able to identify people of subsaharan african extraction , even if that person was an african american, unless they were an octaroon or less, with a high level of accuracy just by looking at their genes.
similarly a european corpse from 4000 years ago would have dna that even by today's testing would match him as unmistakeably european.
looking at the IQ of african americans is useful because it control to a large degree the differences that a 3rd education system would have witha 1st world, western education system. This can be controlled further by doing transracial adoption studies.
>>7677172
>get a load of this pleb
Read up on convergent evolution to realize why your argument is retarded.
>>7674961
His rectus frustratum has become inflamed.
>>7674747
I think it's a break down of communication really.
When the ideas of race as a social construct were coming out, race was four groups of humans based largely on skin color but also other regional variations.
So while populations of course adapt to specific environments, the notion of the 4 big races (white, black, yellow, red) is not biologically sound for humans.
It's largely why biologists have just gotten away from the word "race", it's just too interlinked with the classic four major races idea.
>>7676614
>You're wrong, actually. Race isn't rigorously defined by DNA.
can you back that up?
>Actually, race hasn't been considered legit biology for years
nagger ploose
>>7676634
well said
>>7676672
>defining the notion of traditional races through genetics has proven to be pretty much impossible
literally reatrded, poor thing
>>7676782
are you saying anything?
>>7676796
argumentum ad authoritam? and you're authoritam is a mechanical engineer?!
>>7678495
Well you have to define race if you're gonna use the word
So what do you mean by race then?
>>7674726
Kind of. Race is dying as humanity evolves. There will be another mutation to discriminate against when that's gone.
>>7678614
we all know what race means, don't be baka desu
but since you want me to spell it out, races are geographically separated populations who have interbred and evolved seperately from other populations
we all know what race means, why do you want to redefine it? do you have an agenda?
>>7678619
I don't standunder you, what do you mean?
>>7678664
So how many races are there? There's gotta be dozens of them at least.
>>7677172
You literally just gave the argument for why race is a social construct.
>>7678664
what's you're point? because there are several ways to draw the lines speperating races they don't exist?
do you also believe that orange is yellow?
>>7674726
>Does race exist?
The marvelous fact about the human mind is that it has an ability to conjure facts even if it's not there. White Americans remembered dark skin blacks and Hispanics as less intelligent. They thought light-skinned blacks and Hispanics were intelligence. Even though there is no basis of whether or not skin tone correlates in intelligence, the human brain doesn't know that.
The point am trying to get across is that race is real to most people. The human mind makes up facts if it's not there like the skin tone bias I mentioned. Race isn't real though.
>They're dumb because genetics
>>no they're not, it's oppreshun
>See these twin studies?
>>w-well it doesn't matter anyway they can't help being born like that
Pointless argument.
>>7678691
your not even convincing yourself baka desu
>>7678492
All of the traditional notions of race predate modern genetics (turn of the millennium science).
The idea that race could be defined genetically was based on two (now known to be unfounded) principles.
Choose two groups out of a larger population.
>If these two groups are genetically more similar to each other than they are to the rest of the population, then they will also be physically more similar to each other than they are to the rest of the population.
>If these groups are genetically more distant to each other than they are to other groups in the population then they will be more different physically with each other than they are with said (genetically similar) groups.
Unfortunately both of these claims have been proven false thanks to breakthroughs in convergent evolution.
So, we can't simply infer a genetic distance in groups by looking at physical features.
This means that in order to define races genetically you need to find an objective way of partitioning humans into groups without relying on physical features or self-reporting (lol, social constructs belong in social science). Unfortunately going by raw genetic data it's simply not possible. Humans are too closely related and clustering algorithms are inherently non-convergent. In other words, if you and several other people try doing this then you will each get
>Different numbers of races.
>Totally different races altogether.
>Different members in different races.
etc..
Worse, running an actual algorithm on the same data multiple times will produce different results each time.
The only way to fix this is to cheat and tell the system what you want your partitions to look like ahead of time.
>I want there to be n races.
>I want this race to have these members, and this other one to have these other members, etc...
This is the "popular" way of justifying races. Unfortunately it suffers a logical fallacy. One is assuming that races exist in order to prove that races exist.
>>7678701
your entire post is absolute smelly bullshit
noone believes your boasian crap
explain why japanese couples never have negro babies
>>7678664
I'm not that guy but that's an incredibly very vague definition of race.
Also worth mentioning is that due to convergent evolution it's possible for geographically separated populations to converge onto almost identical physical features and be almost indistinguishable,
>>7678495
>well clearly we culd define more races or less, it doesn't mean that race doesn't exist though?
You could also define entirely different races.
>>7678701
Eh, that still doesn't support either of:
>race is a social construct
>race doesn't exist
Even as a rudimentary grouping of human specimens on phenotype it is both a real and objective measure of facts. While people may quibble about the specific traits which demarcate the boundaries of classification, this isn't unlike other fields of science - the recent debate over just what constitutes a planet is one example.
>>7678711
is it true that Africans have 0% neanderthal DNA, but Europeans have 4%?
>>7678732
are you lying or just ill informed?
>>7678715
The argument was for race not being a genetic partitioning.
This isn't just a matter of quibbling. Note that mutually exclusive sets of genes can express the same phenotype. Here is a picture that explains the issue.
>The fish on the left side are all genetically similar to each other.
>The fish on the right side are genetically similar to each other.
>The fish on the left side are genetically distant from the fish on the right side.
If you were to group them by phenotype then you would end up with groups that have nothing to do with the genetics of the fish.
Furthermore, race as a social construct means that you can define race in a social way (eg. people self-identify this way). This doesn't mean it doesn't "exist" but it does mean that it's a social phenomenon. For instance one could similarly define "fursona" as a social construct. On /sci/ we tend to consider the social sciences to be pseudosciences and hence it makes more sense to say a thing doesn't exist than to say it exists a social phenomenon.
>>7678706
So assuming that by "negro" you mean a person with black skin. Then it is possible for black people to be japanese citizens and thus it is possible for a black japanese couple to exist. Such a couple could trivially have a black child. Which, again, assuming by "negro" you mean a person with black skin, this would be a negro child.
>>7678724
The claim was only that all humans that migrated Africa show a higher percentage of neanderthal DNA. If you pick a random non-African (such as a European, Asian, Amerindian, etc..) then they won't necessarily have 4% and similarly a random African won't necessarily have 0%.
More interesting however is that some newer research suggests that so called "Neanderthal DNA" could actually be explained by us having an older common ancestor with Neanderthals (hence no interbreeding).
>>7678771
>So assuming that by "negro" you mean a person with black skin. Then it is possible for black people to be japanese citizens and thus it is possible for a black japanese couple to exist. Such a couple could trivially have a black child. Which, again, assuming by "negro" you mean a person with black skin, this would be a negro child.
so cows born in a barn magically become horses?
>>7678778
>some newer research suggests
>>7678782
If your definitions are vague enough, yes.
>>7678800
you honestly believe that a cow born underwater becomes a dolphin?
this IS /sci/ you know?
>>7678811
Not that anon, but what the fuck do you want out of this thread? You act with authority, but it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>7678818
are you making an argument, or attacking motives?
motives have nothing to do with truth
>>7678811
You asked if it's possible for a Japanese couple to have a negro baby. One could only surmise that since Japanese is a nationality and negro refers to skin color then obviously the question was true. Similarly an American couple could have a negro baby.
Clearly you disagree with this since your definitions for Japanese and negro are subjective and have nothing to do with reality.
I have no idea how you're defining any of these other terms but sure, anything's possible if your definitions are retarded.
>>7678821
>muh every post should be a debate
I'm asking you what you're doing here and what your goal is.
>>7678834
>on the contrary, you're definitions are at odds with reality, since you assume what makes someone Japanese is where they are born, not their DNA
10/10 bait. I lol'd pretty hard.
>>7678839
easier than addressing the point I made
>>7678834
>evading the question
>>7678842
>on the contrary, you're definitions are at odds with reality, since you assume what makes someone American is where they are born, not their DNA
Get a load of this guy.
>>7678846
who are you quoting?
>>7678847
so geographical location of birth determines race?
nword please
>>7674726
Yes and yes
>>7678848
confirmed for weak troll
>>7678852
so sciencetific, wow you sure blew my arguments our of the water with that response ... bro
>>7678850
Nationality determines nationality. Birth isn't the only way to attain nationality.
>>7678857
you answered a question that I didn't ask, and you are wrong
>>7678856
>digging yourself deeper
are you even replying to the other people bothering to make arguments against you?
>>7678860
American and Japanese are nationalities.
>>7678867
it would be referred as anglo-saxon and asian. Not american and japanese
>>7678867
What are these races you speak of? Keep in mind that American and Japanese nationals include all sorts of individuals with all sorts of physical characteristics, skin colors, cultural backgrounds, etc...
>>7678868
Asian as in the continent containing Russia?
Anglo-saxon, as in the old timey german tribes?
>>7678867
Are you?
>>7678874
and you?
>>7678869
you don't even know what a race is?!?
If there are "races" then how many races are there?
>>7674726
sure, there's many differences between people on earth, it's just that the classical notion "race" is not a valid classification, it's too broad and any distinction you make between the "races" will be arbitrary.
Like for example if you decide to have the Africanoids as a race, and the whites, or Europoids/Caucasoids, and the Mongoloids, and the Arabs, where would the Jews fit in? You couldn't tell a Levantine Jew apart from an Arab, but the Ashkenazis look more European. So what do you do?
Also what about Italians/Greeks vs. Norwegians, Swedes and Latvians... are they all Causasoids? The people look really fucking different. Should there be a Southern Europe and a Norther Europe race? What about the Russians, Turks, Islanders, Aborigines...
You could draw distinctions ad infinitum and you wouldn't really get any closer to understanding anything
>>7674726
Molybdenum did an interview with an expert on this subject recently. They discussed things like major differences between the physical abilities of east vs west africans.
>>7678886
>If there are "different types" of stars, then how many types are there?
>>7678894
>where would the Jews fit in
Jews are Caucasoid I'm pretty sure.
the absence of differences would be adequate proof of creationism.
It's amusing all the same reasoning fallacies employed by creationist manifest to deny evolution more saliently.
>>7678926
10/10
here's your reply
>>7674726
Yes of course races exist, regardless of racism and discrimination. Doesn't matter if you think whites are better than black or not, they still are by fact of different race, their bone and skin are different. Same species, different race. Just like chinese, japanesse and russians are all mongol.
IQ? well, IQ is arguably affected by the environment of growth and the quality of education in the country. When it comes to africa the education is quite shitty therefore most would score idiotic scores in IQ tests.
>>7678941
that cuts both ways, but you only ever hear one
>poor condition may generate lower IQ
the narrative
>lower IQ may generate poor conditions
hatefact
>>7678926
libtards don't like facts
>>7678917
Who are you quoting?
>>7678949
I'm a "libtard". I believe that the average IQ of african-americans is lower, because I am a PhD physics candidate and I wouldn't be caught dead denying experimental evidence to fit an ideal view of the world.
What makes me "liberal", I guess, is that I don't think they should be discriminated against because of this. I don't support affirmative action, either, btw.
What concerns me is just this blindness to hypocrisy and segregationalist attitude- is it not clear that the GOP is playing fast and loose with basically everything they say? From denying climate change to asserting that the pyramids store grain, to misrepresenting obama's policies and making up stories about 9/11 in order to further discriminate against Muslim-Americans, surely you admit that the problem extends beyond the democratic party.
I'm getting frustrated by this whole us vs. them attitude. Choose your views individually and be prepared to defend them- there is NOTHING more destructive than subscribing to the views of an entire party for no more reason than that it is easier than thinking for yourself. It's destructive to the political process, it's destructive to the earth because of the clusterfuck the climate change debate is, and it has terrifying consequences when we start having candidates so unhinged that they can't even say why their policies are different from Nazi policies.
>>7678964
Your definition of "discrimination" revolves around the evil white reptilians who don't hire black people because of their skin color, which has incidentally nothing to do with them being totally underqualified or anything. Or the evil racist cops who wanna put black people into jail because of their skin color, and not because they happened to have the highest crime rates and make up half the crime in US even though they are a minority. Or the racist pig white superiors who don't wanna allow refugees into their peaceful land because they are muslims, and not because it leads to ISIS massacres or anything.
Yeah, no wonder why people call you libtards. You support the worst things under the premise of tolerance, diversity and racial justice when innocent people have to suffer for your self-righteous misinformed ideology.
The /pol/ is strong in this thread
>>7679005
hi /sjw/
>>7678997
I dont believe I gave a defintion of discrimination?
>>7679042
Too bad most libtards think that way.
>>7679050
You're position is basically unintelligible. You are doing nothing but generalizing and spewing rhetoric as opposed to responding to ANY of the quite moderate and meta things I said
>>7679055
your
>>7678964
Well you weren't so clear to make your point. You said you accepted the fact that african-americans have lower IQs, and they shouldn't be discriminated against, but you didn't suggest anything to fix it. People are not going to hire uneducated, underqualified people no matter what their skin color is.
>>7679070
I'm not saying there needs to be, or is anything to "fix" it. I in fact didn't say anything of the sort. What's going on here is I generally philosophized about political segregation, which you seem to love, and give the example that I, a mostly social and less-so-but-still fiscal liberal, don't ignore evidence if it isn't pleasant to me. I then pointed out how much willful ignorance there is in the GOP as a counter to your assertion that somehow liberals hate facts. Society as a whole hates facts, mate, denial is pervasive in human psychology.
How come none of the people in this thread that view race as a valid biological construct for humans can tell me how many there are?
>>7679087
> Society as a whole hates facts, mate, denial is pervasive in human psychology.
I'm sure generalizing it helps your case but this is a science board. This is the only place where facts should be worshipped but because of science and fact haters, people reduce to name callings and ad-hominems whenever facts hurt their feelings. You have no idea how many people who simply wanted to talk about race, genes and evolution got accused of being a neo-nazi.
btw we were talking about the racial and structural differences in intelligence, not the GOP. Would you like to comment of the subject further ?
>>7679092
Maybe they trust in your abilities to succesfully google something you wanna find out.
>>7679098
google told me none
so I wanted the other side's ideas
>>7678964
what does your politics have to do with scientific truth?
do you have anything to contribute scientifically?
>>7678997
have to agree
>>7679055
what are you're say'ing?
take a posit'ion
>>7679087
you don't deny the evidence, but then you insult all conservatives? for what? for seeking the truth?
>>7679123
didn't google very hard, do you belong on /sci/ ?
>>7679160
>didn't google very hard, do you belong on /sci/ ?
do you? How many races are there anon?
>>7679167
how many colors are there?
>>7679167
are you claiming there are 0?
>>7679169
acknowledging color is racism and everyone knows that :)
and so is acknowledging language, culture, laws, constitution, morals and ethics since they are all social constructs.
>This is actually a partisan political topic in America
YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP
>>7679195
do you have anything to add judge death?
>>7679198
No, I'm not a geneticist and it doesn't look like anyone else in this thread is either. Have fun with your meme thread.
>>7679202
so you are not claiming that there is only one race?
do you agree that there are some races?
>>7679202
what do you understand as race?
the whole argument against its existence consists of verbal gymnastics about its meaning and frankly you don't seem interested in learning so much as defending your dogma.
>>7679209
I'm not making a claim. Read the chain of posts. I'm asking a question.
To the people that argue race is a valid biological concept for humans, how many races do you think there are?
>>7679210
>what do you understand as race?
That's what I'm trying to figure out from the "pro-race" side in this thread.
I'm begging for a definition of race and how many there are, no one wants to comply.
>>7679218
are we just going to do this for the rest of the thread?
you are on /sci/ and asking how many races there are? well it depends on where you draw the lines
I would say that there are 4 main races
>>7679226
Because people are only concerned about major the races they interact with everyday like anglo-saxons, sub-saharans, hispanics, asians, indians and stuff. it's like asking how many computers there are. He's trying to make it just because nobody bothered to learn every one of them, computer types don't exist.
>>7679246
I considered the major groupings of physical and mental characteristics, combined with geographical location
how many do you think there are, why?
>>7679264
>I considered the major groupings of physical and mental characteristics, combined with geographical location
Yeah, but I'm asking for your work so to speak
>how many do you think there are, why?
That's what I'm trying to figure out
>>7679278
there is only so long you can continue to question without stating any beliefs or positions of your own, without looking like a shill
>>7679295
>asking people for their reasoning is shilling for the opposite sides
Why is it so important that I take some kind of liberal vs conservative political view point? Why would I describe which way I lean on this specific issue if I'm not sure yet?
I thought this was /sci/, I'm skeptical of both positions. I doubt that the 4 races as described by the 1800s on skin color are useful genetic categories that tell you anything useful about biology or capability but I also know that populations do change and if how you look can change why can't your mental capacities change too?
But when I ask about race to the pro-race people I get met with all this resistance, trying to suss out my political leanings. So honestly, I'm more inclined to believe the "liberal" position by virtue of them at least being up front about what they think.
>>7679315
you have not provided any input of your own, likely out of concern you'll be wrong or have you belief system undermined. Please give us your understanding of race or anything in the vein of sincerity
>>7679315
> pro-race people
Are you denying the existence of races ? If not then why do you pull terms out of your ass like "pro-race"
>>7679315
I don't know how many breeds of dogs are out there either and I'm "pro-breed". Just because I don't know the number of existing breeds, do you think dogs don't have breeds ?
>>7679320
>Please give us your understanding of race or anything in the vein of sincerity
I did.
I'm skeptical of both positions. I doubt that the 4 races as described by the 1800s on skin color are useful genetic categories that tell you anything useful about biology or capability but I also know that populations do change and if how you look can change why can't your mental capacities change too?
Why are you trying to skew that very honest and open position into something to argue against?
>>7679323
Well there are the pro-race people and the social construct people. Why does understanding that two popular positions exist on an issue make me belong to either side?
Pro-race is shorter than "people that support the idea of races as a biological fact in humans"
>>7679335
you have not. Skin color is not race, that's a shitlib strawman.
>>7679335
Do you think race doesn't have a biological basis ? Do you think all black people have black skin for non-biological reasons ? Are you trolling ring now ?
>>7679335
>if how you look can change why can't your mental capacities change too?
nword waht?
>very honest
heh
>races as a biological fact
yes, it is a biological fact
there are diseases that only certain races get, and drugs only approved for certain races, they are real in medicine and science
explain how forensic scientists and anthropologists can determine race from bone fragments, is it's just made up
>killing people who are not white is ok
>being nice to others is communism
>>7679337
Yeah, I realize I was taught the liberal stuff but so when I ask the other side to try to get the other perspective I'm then accused of being a liberal.
From this thread alone you can see there are different definitions of race, so I'm not sure which one I ascribe to. Hence the questioning.
I figured people would want to educate me.
>>7679339
When did I say that?
Why are you trying to debate someone that wants your position on things?
Why can't any of the people I'm responding to simply give me their position, evidence, and reasoning without trying to attack my position? My position is that I'm unsure which side I'm on.
>>7679343
>explain how
that's not my position, surely that's obvious by now
I feel like I'm on trial for trying to figure out why you anons think what you do.
I thought being able to demonstrate and explain your position was an important part of science.
>>7679366
>there are diseases that only certain races get, and drugs only approved for certain races
do you agree that this is true?:
>>7679366
i'm simply asking you questions. You're the one who kept stalling for numerous posts. Do you think race does or does not have a biological basis ?
The other anon said race is used in medicine and DNA examination or even a hair sample can give you the race of an individual. Why do you keep ignoring the science thrown in your way and keep focusing on the tone people use when replying to you ?
>>7679366
you have no right to such treatment unless you are willing to be cross-examined in the same respects and you have not delivered. It's like Lysenkosim all over again.
>>7679368
>there are diseases that only certain races get
I'm not so sure, I guess I'd just need examples. As I'm sure you can guess they leave this part out of modern college courses that deal with race in some way.
>and drugs only approved for certain races
yes
>>7679372
>Do you think race does or does not have a biological basis?
Well it'd have to, right?
>Why do you keep ignoring the science thrown in your way and keep focusing on the tone people use when replying to you ?
I'm not ignoring any science anon, I'm not going to defend positions I don't necessarily support.
And I'm gonna focus on tone because I thought my question was straight forward. Give me your reasoning and evidence for your definition of race. When that get's answered with "well tell us your position first" then that does confuse me.
>>7679373
My position is I'm unsure and I want the explanation that goes against what I was taught.
How does that get turned into having me need to define where I sit on the issue and defend a position?
The only position I need to defend is that I'm skeptical.
I still think it's just bizarre that someone that comes to /sci/ asking for answers is met with such distrust.
>>7679408
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isosorbide_dinitrate/hydralazine
>Isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine is a fixed dose combination drug treatment specifically indicated for African Americans with congestive heart failure
>>7679408
because you're clearly trying to obfuscate. How can we best explain our position when you will not attempt to describe yours
>>7679408
You ignored how medicine is used in race-specific conditions and DNA can tell someones race again. And you will keep ignoring the science and focus on garbage again.
It's pointless talking to you, you will keep greentexting the use of tone rather than adressing the scientific context of of the posts. You are not interested in learning anything, you're just here to oppose.
>>7679430
>"maximum bait"
>there's no bait on the hook
>>7679449
check out the newfag
>>7679419
>How can we best explain our position when you will not attempt to describe yours
Would you need to understand creationism to explain evolution or an old earth? I'm not even inherently disagreeing with your position, I just want the evidence for it. I want the terms defined. I want to be taught.
I've told you what my position is over and over. Is it not allowed for me to be unsure and questioning?
I've been liberally educated, taught that race as commonly understood is a social construct and I've come here for the alternative explanation.
>>7679428
>DNA can tell someones race again
Okay great, something to work with. Maybe using this example you can explain how race is assessed?
I can't believe it's this hard asking /sci/ to explain something, I'm practically begging for information here.
>>7679416
I said yes to the prescription drug thing.
Do I need to go to /pol/? Will they actually be straightforward with me instead of trying to figure out what side I'm on and if I can be trusted with the precious secrets of race?
>>7679475
>I said yes to the prescription drug thing.
so you agree that race is real and important esp in medicine?
![VXWsQ[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/XHcv1Yi.jpg "VXWsQ[1].jpg")
>>7679475
> I can't believe it's this hard asking /sci/ to explain something, I'm practically begging for information here.
You know how people say there are no stupid questions ? Well there are. Asking such a bait-like question as "is race real" is like asking if mutation or phenotypes are real. People who visit this board are expected to have a certain level of understanding about biology or atleast common knowledge.
Here. You can even apply your own DNA sample here and they will show the roots of your race way back to your ancesters.
http://dna.ancestry.com/
>>7679475
your having a hard time tonight, very low energy
>>7679475
so expose any potential misunderstanding you have instead of just repeating yourself.
>>7679475
what a loser
>>7679502
>making up expectations for the board
>accusing me of b8
>Asking such a bait-like question as "is race real" is like asking if mutation or phenotypes are real.
So race is phenotype? Is that what you're trying to tell me?
And that website doesn't use the word race, which only contributes to my confusion about what it is.
>>7679503
>more b8 accusations
>>7679504
Why? Why can't anyone tell me how you divide people up into races and how many that leads you to? I told you what I've been taught, so arguably you know what misunderstandings I would have. Not that they are misunderstandings because I don't claim that knowledge as my own point of view but whatever.
It's been posts and posts and no one will give me a definition of race.
>>7679511
what a piece of shit
>>7679527
so we can clarify it for you?
apparently "social construct" is a cue for you to stop thinking and just repeat the same scripts ad nauseum.
>>7679534
It's very clear what I'm asking for, will you provide it or not?
>>7679527
Race is the group of people you belong to based on your characteristic properties as it relates to your DNA, physical and many other biological properties. Thats why some medicine and diseases only work with specific races, and thats why DNA tests are used to identify someones race, which is strong enough to be held as evidence in criminal investigations.
>>7679556
not it isn't because you keep playing keep away with the goal post and whining about tone.
what in detail do you understand as race, and if it is a social construct, what is that to be understood as?
>>7676945
>majority of sci are high schoolers and college students who do whatever the fuck
>talking about not having a competent opinion on a certain field
Sure, because you are most likely an anthropologist or a geneticist.
>>7679527
I just joined this thread.
I imagine the point here is to explain that race is decided as a way of classifying people into groups, it attempts to use phenotypes to predict a persons lineage and genetics, but it isn't rigorous and so isn't completely accurate.
Let me give you an example of something similar.
Tay-Sachs is disease caused by recessive alleles.
Ashkenazi Jews, French Canadians, and the Cajun community of Louisiana have similar rates of recessive carriers (ie those who have on copy of the allele that causes disease) of about 1 in 30. The rate of carriers in the general population is about 1 in 300.
However, is it accurate to say that French Canadians, members of the Cajun community, and Ashkenazi Jews are of the same race, or similar lineages? Not really. In fact, Ashkenazis and Cajuns have the same mutation, but the French Canadians have a different mutation.
If we speculated that they were related purely by epidemiology of disease, we would think that French canadians are related to Ashkenazis.
Similarly, our classifications of race categories groups that appear similar together, even though there are many distinct groups within a race.
Because of the lack of rigour of classifying races, some people refer to it as a social construct, that we describe certain phenotypes as being indicative of belonging to a certain race.
A good example of this is cryptic species. Two species that are indistinguishable phenotypically, but are incapable of breeding. A plant or animal from one species may look indistinguishable to a plant or animal from another, but it is merely a product of their adaptations to environment being the best for survival producing indistinguishable individuals.
I could look at someone, and they appear to be a woman, but actually they are an XY male with androgen insensitivity syndrome. If I were to classify them anthropologically/phenotypically, it would seem they are female; but genetically they are male.
>>7679570
>not it isn't because you keep playing keep away with the goal post
Bullshit, we aren't debating and I haven't established a single goal post to move.
>what in detail do you understand as race, and if it is a social construct, what is that to be understood as?
I just don't fucking understand how you can't get it through your fucking skull that I don't have viewpoints on this I'd call my own. Imagine me as a blank slate, what difference does it make with you explaining anything? Don't correct my ideas, explain what race is, how you find it, how many there are in humans, etc.
Unless the next post has answers I'm writing you off as a shitty troll.
>>7679559
So where is the cut off and how is it described in humans specifically, like how much variance constitutes a race? Like is "asians" a race under this and do Polynesians count as their own thing? Would you group eskimos and Aztecs together?
![mulrac1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/UyM8u86.jpg "mulrac1[1].jpg")
The genetic differences among races are said to be minor, but their physical and biological manifestations are quite huge. These differences exist and so can be used to tell someone's race from their DNA.
About 100,000 years ago, Homo sapiens left Africa in a series of waves and settled Europe, Asia, Australia and the Americas. Since the migrations were small and happened in waves, each group's mtDNA is subtly different. For example, groups that stayed in Africa have a different set of changes in their mtDNA than did those that migrated to the Americas. All of this boils down to there are specific differences that can be mapped based on when your ancestors left Africa.
>>7679609
it's more important to unlearn before you get your spoon-feeding, if you can't have a semblance of intellectual honesty, then what expectations should we hold?
but to your question, yes they are all "asian" but they are also distinct elements within the grouping. It all depends on how you truncate. if you want to go full pedant and claim every village is its own subrace, there is grounds for that but that is a largely meaningless distinction.
>>7679633
What is intellectually dishonest about my position?
how about you stop being just a fucking asshole on a witch hunt and simply explain your argument?
>but to your question, yes they are all "asian" but they are also distinct elements within the grouping. It all depends on how you truncate. if you want to go full pedant and claim every village is its own subrace, there is grounds for that but that is a largely meaningless distinction.
well then how are the races decided on?
>>7679660
The fact you offer nothing except complaints?
genetic distance not unlike how breeds of animals are.
>>7679617
According to that Swedish geneticists humans and apes share around 96% of their genes.
So yes, having a bunch of similar junk DNA doesn't mean much, especially when the phonological differences are so vast.
This documentary is actually worth watching he talks to a wide variety of people you can clearly see the distinction between the far left press, the centrist press, the rightwing nuts and finally what the actual professional scientists think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve6uK00AvNo
>>7679663
>The fact you offer nothing except complaints?
Not true. Now who's intellectually dishonest?
Again, you think this is a debate and it isn't faggot.
>>7679671
you don't want to have an honest discussion and put your cards on the table no matter how shitty they may be. Just say something that could very well be wrong and have us help you re-assess it. is the socratic method alien to you?
>>7679660
read this you fucking idiot : >>7679617
you keep ignoring all the numerous answers you get then you cry about why nobodys answering you.
Humanity have migrated from Africa to other parts of the world long time ago such as america, europe and asia. The people who stayed there have developed very specific characteristics that encoded to their DNAs over centuries of generations These characteristics relates to both their physical appereance and their biology. This includes skin color, facial structure, bone structure, muscle structure, intelligence, congitive and linguistic variances and so on. I'm fucking tired of repeating myself but again, you can get DNA tested and check your ancestoral roots. Like you can be %60 chinese, %20 japanese, %10 european and %10 middle eastern. Which means you are %80 asian and %20 other. Thats your race as it's described by biological means.
>>7675208
Step it up son.
>>7679674
I don't have any cards you sack of shit. I've said this repeatedly and your side of it is "stop lying."
I said what I've been taught, multiple times.
And still you refuse to engage. Fuck off.
>>7679678
So how many races are there? That was the original question I was asking.
You can pretend I'm ignoring this big pile of evidence, but I'm not.
It sounds like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about if you can't explain how races are defined in practice.
You just fucking said Chinese was different from Japanese by that DNA heritage hypothetical, but somehow you know both of those are the asian race. How did you jump from I'm 60% chinese and 20% Japanese to 80% asian?
What is it I'm ignoring or resisting? When I go on to ask questions about how the specifics work, I'm not disagreeing with the premise you twat.
That post also doesn't explain how you decide when a group is a race or variation within a race.
>>7679708
it's not a question of if its bait or not. it's a question of how tasty it is
>>7679714
> Asks to be explained why chinese and japanese people are from asia
You are hopeless. I'm tired of spoonfeeding you. Read atleast one biology and a history book before trying to citicize people on a science board. And don't come here before grasping a rudimentary level of common knowledge.
What a waste.
>>7679714
why do you understand it that way, explain your logic and we can explain how that is flawed.
Oh wait you won't and will call us shitlords you crybully.
>>7678917
bout 13
Fucking /sci/ is filled with retards. OP what you have posted is called phrenology. A bunk study form the 19th century. Geneticists and anthropologists. Have concluded race is a social construction. Forensic anthropologists use race as a method government record keeping during identifying a body. Forensic anthropologists don't believe in race but the government does. So to keep record they have to use those terms. This topic has been bunked before on /sci/. /pol/ loves to dick wave their retardation to other boards.
>>7679714
People who lived in the same land or continent have bred with each other for centuries and developed specific characteristics which are encoded to their DNA, which is also shaped by the geological conditions of where they lived. And since they happened to live in asia, we called them asians, and their race have majorly consisted of haplogroups around the asia area and naturally shared the same characteristics relating to both their physical and biological properties.
I understood what he meant only by that post which you couldn't fucking comprehend for a whole thread.
>>7679725
>why do you understand it that way
I don't, I don't have a clear understanding of race. The entire point of me coming to this thread is because I don't have a clear understanding of what race is. And you still can't understand this?
I was taught race is a social construct. You know, what I've said. I don't really agree with your opposition, so why are you trying to get me to explain their position?
It isn't relevant to your explanation. Does a textbook ask me what I already know about a subject before it starts giving me information? No, it doesn't you cunt.
>>7679724
Are you being this fucking stupid on purpose? Just tell me.
>hurr you haven't ever had a biology or history course in your life
Do you know how much of a fucking asshole that assertion makes you?
You haven't "spoonfed" me anything. You explained nothing.
Posturing doesn't convince me of your position, in face it does quiet the opposite.
>what a waste
>oh i'm soooo superior to people I won't educate
I'm genuinely wondering if you even can explain your position seeing as how you absolutely refuse to.
>>7679743
You obviously didn't understand my questions though.
>>7679746
You asked why people from asia are called asian. You're either trolling or retarded. Or both.
>>7679749
you obviously don't understand that you need to give us something to work with instead of being sassy, defending your status quo while omitting all the other content which explains it already for you.
>>7679763
I'm really curious what they call asian or black people when they see them. Because they wouldn't call them asian or black considering how difficult was it for him to grasp such a basic concept. He must have a different system.
>>7679760
Not what I asked.
>How did you jump from I'm 60% chinese and 20% Japanese to 80% asian?
Instead of asking me what I meant by that, you just berated me.
You're either trolling or retarded. Or just fucking retarded.
>>7679763
>you obviously don't understand that you need to give us something to work with instead of being sassy
You have something to work with, your knowledge of what race is. Apparently you're all experts but you can't explain it.
What status quo do you assume I'm defending?
>>7679769
I'm not on a side in this debate, I'm asking for the evidence one side has and all I get is this constant assumption I'm secretly a liberal with an agenda.
When I get an answer, that intrigues me and I ask more questions.
For some reason, that's seen not only as disagreeing but supporting the opposite.
Being a skeptic of something doesn't mean you automatically support the opposite view.
>>7679784
So you didn't know both chinese and japanese people lived in Asia for a long time ? Did you read like maybe one history book in your life ? Or did you go into college where they give history lessons ?
How do you expect people to take you seriously when you're asking 9th grader questions ?
>>7679788
You kept and keep avoiding questions the entire thread. What do you call asians or black people when you see them ? I'm just curious.
>>7679791
Are you high?
The question is why is Asian a race but Chinese and Japanese aren't. I want to know how the number of races was teased out. How does one level of genetic variance get called a race but not others?
>>7679797
Correct, I'm not answering questions that have nothing to do with evidence for human races. I'm asking for information, and asking my position turns this into a debate. While a lot of posters seem to want to turn it into this, I'm not fucking debating anyone because I'm not disagreeing with anyone.
I've explained where I'm coming from, how does "what do you call black people" fit into anyone explaining anything to me?
>>7679810
Oh wow my bad. I forgot for a second that we were obligated to serve you and answer your questions and this wasn't actually a discussion board. Although I did learn lots of things about race and genetics that I didn't know before so I can't really complain.
>>7679820
>THIS POSITION IS RIGHT!
>oh cool, I question what I was taught which was different can you explain why you're right?
>TELL US YOUR POSITION FIRST!
>but I just said I'm unsure, tell me your evidence
>WE AREN'T OBLIGATED TO DO SHIT
fuck off, if anything the posters like you are the ones now stifling discussion
>>7679827
are you that dense?
Why can't you be outright and try to come to some middle ground with us?
>>7679827
Well I read about 10 different explainations about race and genetics from multiple sources in this thread. I don't know what you're butt imploded about but it was pretty enlightning. You are quite a shitty troll I have to tell you.
>>7679832
Are you addicted to the taste of baits or something ? I was one of the race denying trolls in this thread and I've been just waiting for someone to call it. You guys really don't know where the line is.
>>7679836
>I was only pretending to be retarded
>>7679834
>Well I read about 10 different explainations about race and genetics from multiple sources in this thread
Did you really read the thread? Cause then you'd know I want to know how one level of genetic variance is called a race and more specific variation isn't.
>>7679832
I've been outright since the beginning. People keep asking for my ideas on the subject and that's why I'm here. Do people want me to regurgitate the same liberally biased story they all know? For what purpose?
The middle ground isn't between you and me, it's between the pro-race and social construct people. I'm in the middle by NOT constantly rejecting evidence I'm offered. I might ask more about it, but not I'm countering with anything from the social construct side.
It's completely irrelevant what I think, because I'm not debating. If I want to be taught, it should be pretty simple to just give information and explain the questions I have about it. Asking my side of things is trying to create conflict when I've already said explicitly that I'm not disagree with anything yet.
But nope, I only get so many questions about the topic before my person views are brought up, which before this thread were that I've heard both sides and I'm unconvinced by either.
>>7679843
but nobody cares what you want :c everyone but you have understood what race is
>>7679846
>everyone but you have understood what race is
The question is how one level of variance is called a race and others aren't. I'm asking when that happens, and what amount of difference. I understand the concept, just not the practice.
Stop trying to make it seem like I'm saying shit I'm not.
Just like the thread up until now, I've asked what should be a simple question and it's met with so much rhetoric it's almost unbelievable.
Race as a classification exists,
But it's not a tangible thing, just like the US/Any World government. You can see what it is, what it does, etc. but it doesn't REALLY exist.
>>7679687
>Caring about wrong autocorrect on typos.
I mean if you want to.
>>7679872
just like wavelength classification exists. "red" and "green" don't really exist but the whole world uses them. and they are based on the existing physical differences between wavelengths even though they are ridiculously small as 100 nanometers. Which makes them a social construct baed on a scientific construct, just like race.
>>7680259
>Comparing race to wavelengths.
Jesus Fucking Christ you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>7680284
> omg u can't compare classifications
amazing counter-argument you had there
> does race exist
does air exist ?
>>7680294
You can't even SEE air, obviously it's just a social construct.
>>7680310
wat is even air ? how many types of air are there ? why can't anyone answer me. Air obviously doesn't exist !
>>7675211
Autism
Of course difference exists. It just happens that the popular classification (i.e, black/white/yellow) is fucking stupid and has no real science behind it.
>>7680815
>fucking stupid and has no real science behind it
source for claim?
>>7680815
yeah. black people call themselves black for no reason
>>7680997
>>7681007
Ask me how I know you're from /pol/? The reason no one likes these threads its because its usually some retard from /pol/. The debate was settle and its tiring seeing people ask the same stupid question. Race like you know it is not real. Black, Yellow, etc are classification started a few hundred years ago. It was a mean to control and divide a population. The science behind it is bunk. It was pseudo-science. Its like astrology. You're a homo-sapiens that's your race. The color of your skin happens to be an environmental effect of generation in a certain region of the world but they are breed out in a few generations. This is why there is no such thing as "pureblood". That just means generation after generation of incest.
>>7681332
We all know it's just an arbitrary adjective for different races you butthurt imbecile. go play your "I'm the white knight of minorities hear me roar" fantasy elsewhere.
these people...
>>7681332
I ask for a source and you just make some claims?
