Are races Equal?

Bogan

Sock it to him/her, just-sayin.

Nomenclature

@Bogan

Bogan, you're confusing quantity with quality. Writing 10,000 words of absolute nonsense won't make your arguments any stronger pal.

I am hardly "apologizing" 

You're trying to justify what you know is an unpopular opinion by empathising with those who hold the opposite opinion, which is a textbook manipulation tactic.

I don't have any trouble doing that.    You seem to be struggling, though

You are having incredible difficulty doing that because racism is not an intellectual point of view. It's a point of view shared only by ignorant, angry, hateful people who don't want to take personal responsibility for their own failures.

 My premise was, I was once like you are now, but I grew up.

And it was a false premise. You fully admit to being a raging racist, so clearly you have not grown up. You have done the opposite.

If I asked you to explain to us how you know that races are equal, you would not have a clue about how to explain it.

You have not said a single thing which is true in this entire conversation. There are no races and that is a scientific fact. You are dividing people along lines which do not exist outside of your own twisted, false perception of reality.

There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/people-and-culture/2018/04/theres-no-scientific-basis-for-race-its-a-made-up-label

I'm done with conversation because you are a neo-Nazi and I don't debate Nazis.

just_sayin

@Nomenclature
I just don't think you understand the contradictions.  First, let's define racism according to popular CRT proponents.

RACIST: One who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea. - Ibram X Kendi

And then he immediately goes on to redefine racism as anyone not supporting the racist notions he has (read the article).  Kendi is pushing racist ideologies and ideas.  He openly supports favoritism towards some racial groups and penalizing others He has famously said ""if racial discrimination is defined as treating, considering, or making a distinction in favor or against an individual based on that person's race, then racial discrimination is not inherently racist."  (How to be an Anti-Racist, 18-19..  That's the quote of someone who supports treating people differently by race, which is a racist belief.  He has rationalized his favoritism of some racial groups and his desire to penalize others.

Kendi believes racism is just and just part of a circular process.  He has said "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."  His system therefore can never lead to racial equality and peace.

He rationalizes his racist views.  He see's any inequity as the result of racism and not only minimizes the role of personal responsibility, labels those who mention the importance of it as racists.  He feels that he can determine what values, guilt, intentions, priviliges, and fragility someone has just by knowing their race.  This is indeed a racist notion.

I asked you before and will keep asking which of these racist beliefs do you think should be taught to child and which do you think children should be made to affirm (these are the heart of what CRT bills have been focused on):

• That one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
• An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive;
• An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;
• A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist;
• Particular character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs should be ascribed to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual's race or sex

So which do you agree with.  Kendi agrees with each of them.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

I just don't think you understand the contradictions. First, let's define racism according to popular CRT proponents.

RACIST: One who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea. - Ibram X Kendi

First you accuse me of not understanding the contradictions, then you confuse the world racism with racist, then you quote the definition of one man and generalise it to everybody who teaches CRT. I think we're done here until you can construct a coherent argument. If you want to write long-winded posts and have me reply to them, don't begin with three fallacies in your first two sentences please.

Bogan

Nommie wrote    Bogan, you're confusing quantity with quality. Writing 10,000 words of absolute nonsense won't make your arguments any stronger pal.

 All I have got from you so far is insults and heckling.    If you think that races are equal, explain how it is that you came to that conclusion?     And another thing, when opposed by opponents that are unable to submit paragraphs explaining their positions,  that is a dead giveaway to me that they have not got much that they can use to justify their own position, even to themselves.

 

Nommie wrote     You're trying to justify what you know is an unpopular opinion by empathising with those who hold the opposite opinion, which is a textbook manipulation tactic.

  I am not interested in popularity, I am interested in an unbiased search for verifiable truth.    How you equate that to "manipulation" is beyond me.   Still no reasoned argument from you.

 

Nommie wrote      You are having incredible difficulty doing that because racism is not an intellectual point of view.

 If you are the intellectual, where is your reasoned argument supporting your "intellectual" opinion that races are equal?      C'mon, intellectual, show me your reasoning.

 

Nommie wrote     It's a point of view shared only by ignorant, angry, hateful people who don't want to take personal responsibility for their own failures.

 Haha.   More ad hominem abuse.     The problem for you is, I am prepared to argue rationally and calmly, while you are the one standing angrily on your dignity and throwing insults, unable to formulate a reasoned argument.  Some intellectual you are.     Why are you so afraid of "ignorant" people like me?    Is it because you may bask in the glory of thinking you are smart because you advocate for "smart people's" causes.    But you are frightened of putting your own beliefs to the test against an informed, supposedly inferior opponent?   I think we all know why.

 

Nommie wrote     And it was a false premise.

 It is a premise I have no trouble presenting a lot of reasoned arguments to support.    You are the one studiously avoiding the issue, and although claiming that your position is "intellectual", you can not explain why you think the way you do.      This displays to any impartial observer how unsure of your passionately held opinion, you really are.

 

Nommie wrote    You fully admit to being a raging racist, so clearly you have not grown up. You have done the opposite.

 More insults instead of reasoned argument.   You are using the term "racist" in the same derogatory way which people who claimed that the earth was the center of the universe used the word "heretic." I don't know how you think you can convince any doe eyed young anti racist of the validity of your anti racist opinion, if all you can do is toss insults instead of debating.    Those young anti racists reading this are depending on you to explain the validity of the anti racist position, Nommie, and you are letting them down.     

 

Nommie wrote    You have not said a single thing which is true in this entire conversation. There are no races and that is a scientific fact.

 Gee willackers.    Then could you then tell the Affirmative Action crowd that since there are scientifically no races, then they can not keep demanding that the races they claim to represent should get special treatment?     And could you also tell the CRT crowd, that if no races scientifically exist, then they can not blame the white race for the dysfunctions of the non existent races that they claim to champion?      Therefore CRT and Affirmative Action are scientifically invalid.     The funny thing about race is that you lefties can see race as plain as day when it is convenient for you to see them, then you claim they do not exist when it is convenient to deny their existence.

 

Nommie wrote    You are dividing people along lines which do not exist outside of your own twisted, false perception of reality.

 I would have thought that blaming the white race for the woes of the always dysfunctional races is a clear case of racism, and a twisted reality?     And spreading the hate speech that whites are responsible for African dysfunction would stoke the fires of hatred of black people toward white people?     

 

Nommie wrote    There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label

 So are "labels" like reptile, fish, bird, mammal, igneous, red dwarf star, black hole, marsupial, quarter horse, Persian cat, lesbian, and every other concept that you can think of which humans use to categorises concepts.   Are these categories also scientifically invalid?    Answer the damned question and stop slithering around what you fear to answer.

 

Nommie wrote    I'm done with conversation because you are a neo-Nazi and I don't debate Nazis.

 Okay, Nommie, then run away and hide in some dark corner where you will not have to face reality.       But you have disappointed all of those young anti racists who were depending on you to show me what is what.     They needed you to show how an "intelligent" person like yourself can drive into the ground with a reasoned argument a supposed id-iot like me.     You have let them down, Nommie.    They are all crying "Say it isn't so, Nommie!"      

Bogan

@just_sayin

Looks like we got Nommie on the run.   Good work.   Sickem, Fang.

Nomenclature

@Bogan

Nommie wrote

In your last post you claimed that you had "grown up" from the days where you were anti-racist, and yet you are using the language of a four year old.

Like I told you the first time, I don't debate Nazis. I especially don't debate Nazis who talk like four year olds.

 So are "labels" like reptile, fish, bird, mammal

All of those words have a scientific definition so you are objectively wrong. You need to learn that ignorance is a problem, not a weapon. 

Swolliw

@Nomenclature

Like I told you the first time, I don't debate Nazis. I especially don't debate Nazis who talk like four year olds......All of those words have a scientific definition so you are objectively wrong. You need to learn that ignorance is a problem, not a weapon. 

Jah vol heir commandant. Vot you say is completely right.

Bogan

@Nomenclature ;

    Nommie wrote     In your last post you claimed that you had "grown up" from the days where you were anti-racist, and yet you are using the language of a four year old.

Like I told you the first time, I don't debate Nazis. I especially don't debate Nazis who talk like four year olds.

Back again, Nommie?     I thought that you had left the arena because you won't debate "Nazis"?    But I see that you are back in the grandstands hurling insults, instead of displaying some guts and getting back in the arena.   And displaying some intelligence by at least attempting to explain why you think that races are equal.    c'mon ma-a-a-a-ate (sorry, bud-dee).   You claimed that the idea of races not being equal is not an "intellectual" argument.      Then logically, the idea that races must be equal is an "intellectual" argument.  Well, what is this "intellectual" argument?   Me and "just-sayin" are waiting with baited breathe.    

If you can't debate your opinions for nuts, then at least try to display some acumen and decorum by not acting like a petulant child.    As for calling you "Nommie". that is just my Australian vernacular.    Aussies shorten and either put put an "ie" or an "o"  on just about every long noun.    Examples "truckie, surfie, bikie, brickie, or garbo (garbage man), wino (wine drunk), bottleo (bottle collection man) or lino (linoleum)   Putting an "ie" on a person's name is a diminutive of the name, and although it can denote contempt, it is much more likely to be a term of affection.    Which is how I used it on you.   

Nommie wrote   All of those words have a scientific definition so you are objectively wrong.     

Actually, I am objectively right.     Anthropologists are scientists who are interested in the study of human history, which often entails working out how the different races spread throughout the globe.    Only recently, the mummified and dissected bodies of Celtic people thousands of years old were discovered in eastern China, leading to anthropoglots wondering how these people got there?    So too, forensic anthropologists are often called in to help the police identify a skeleton, which may lead to the person's identity.     Anthropologists examine the skeleton for age, sex, and race.    They do not say to the police, "we are scientists, we don't recognise the concept of race."    Of course they recognise race.     Racial characteristics in skeletons is so obvious that anthropologists can even identify people of mixed race, and can usually identify what those races are.    Similarly, cognitive metricians, who are also scientists, are also interested in the IQ's of different races.

Look ma-a-a-a-te.    Somebody once told you "scientists do not recognise race", and because you have been conditioned to think that races are equal, you wanted to believe it.    So you used that slogan as evidence for your wishful thinking ideology without bothering to verify if it was even true.     Checkmate.

Nommie wrote  You need to learn that ignorance is a problem, not a weapon.    

I can throw that right back at you.    Instead of just tossing slogans at me, could you at least read back over previous posts on this subject and come up to speed before you come on here and toss silly slogans at me which I have dealt with ad nauseum previously.    I get sick and tired of repeating the same arguments to ignorant people like your good self who are full of opinions they can not verbalise,  and who never even try to do some research.

Bogan

@Swolliw ;   Jah vol heir commandant. Vot you say is completely right.

Still trying to work up some guts to cross swords with me on this topic, Mr Swallow?    i am not surprised that all you can manage is to heckle. 

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Again

@Bogan
Broadly, "race" refers to the four identifiably different skin colours which largely make up the human race. 
Skin color does not determine someone's race, as race is not a scientific concept. Instead, race is a way that societies have historically classified people, and the categories that are used to define race have changed over time and vary from place to place.

There are many different ways to classify skin color, but one way to think about it is that there are around 6 main skin tones in the human race: light, medium light, medium, medium dark, dark, and very dark. Within each of these categories, there are many different shades and variations. It is important to note that skin color is just one way that humans can be classified and it is not a reliable or accurate way to determine someone's identity or ethnicity.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

Skin color does not determine someone's race, as race is not a scientific concept. Instead, race is a way that societies have historically classified people, and the categories that are used to define race have changed over time and vary from place to place.

Thank you for this fantastic explanation. Unfortunately, when you deal with irrational people like Bogan, there really is little way to convince them that they are wrong. Bogan is someone who is genuinely proud to be a moron. He lives in a world where intelligent people are to be mocked for their intelligence.

Bogan

Jules wrote    Skin color does not determine someone's race, as race is not a scientific concept.

 Hi Jules, I get sick and tired of explaining, over, and over, and over again, that race is a scientific concept.    Could you please read back a few posts and come up to speed before you come on this topic and make a statement which is untrue?

 Jules wrote    Instead, race is a way that societies have historically classified people, and the categories that are used to define race have changed over time and vary from place to place.

 Yeah, human beings like to classify everything.   Scientists especially like to classify everything.    The classification that Pluto was a planet was recently changed, it is now no longer considered "a planet".    That does not mean that astronomers originally classifying Pluto as a planet invalidates 3000 years of astronomical research.

 

Jules wrote    There are many different ways to classify skin color, but one way to think about it is that there are around 6 main skin tones in the human race: light, medium light, medium, medium dark, dark, and very dark. Within each of these categories, there are many different shades and variations. It is important to note that skin color is just one way that humans can be classified and it is not a reliable or accurate way to determine someone's identity or ethnicity.

 Human beings have classified other human beings into "races" for at least 2000 years, because I have got a recent reprint of Plutarch's book where he said that in "Anatolia" (eastern turkey) it was occurring that there was the mixing of two different "races", the Celts and the "Asians" (Arabs), and he wondered what kind of racial characteristics would result in the mixing?    So too, British historians were delighted when they unearthed a Roman wax tablet, which was the undelivered letter of a Roman Centurion to his wife in Rome.    In it, the Centurion said "The military exercises went very well today, except of course the Britanculi cavalry, who stuffed everything up, as usual."     "Britanculi" was the racist Roman word for "Briton."    It literally means in Latin "wretched little Brits".

 I know where you are going with this and I am way ahead of you.    You are trying to claim that since races can often be indefinable, then that invalidates the whole concept of race?    It does not.   Race can often be defined by skin colour, but where more discernment is necessary, it is not.   Race is a stereotype and people think with stereotypes.     If I said to you that "there is a Zulu and a Scandinavian standing over there", you mind would compose a picture of two very different types of human beings.

 If a skeleton of an unknown murder victim is unearthed, the first thing the police need to find out is the identity of the victim.    They use forensic anthropologists to begin that process.   The anthropologists examine the bones to discover age, sex, and race of the victim.    They do not say "we can give you age and sex, but as scientists we do not recognise the concept of race."      Of course they recognise race.   Racial differences in human skeletons is so pronounced that anthropologists can even tell if a person is of mixed race, and what those different races are.

Nomenclature

@Bogan

 Hi Jules, I get sick and tired of explaining, over, and over, and over again, that race is a scientific concept

It has already been demonstrated to you that it is not a scientific concept, so we can only reasonably conclude at this point that there is something seriously wrong with the way your mind works. The concept of race predates science, so it is perfectly obvious to anybody with half a functional brain cell that race is not a scientific concept.

There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/people-and-culture/2018/04/theres-no-scientific-basis-for-race-its-a-made-up-label

The problem you have Bogan, is that you're equal parts unintelligent and unreasonable. You are so coloured by your own acquired bias you can't or won't entertain any form of correction to your beliefs. You're effectively a fanatic. 

Bogan

@Nomenclature

Hi Nommie, I am a bit perplexed at how you ran out of this arena screaming that you would never return, and you won't debate against "Nazis" but you keep coming back and trying to engage with me with sneery one liners?    

Science recognises the concept of race.    I have already given Jules an example of just that.      I have plenty more examples up my sleeve but that will do for now.      Your claim that the concept of race predates science, therefore it is invalid, looks loopy to me.    Exactly when science began is anybody's guess?   Stonehenge is an example of a primitive people's science which could be used to determine the correct time to plant crops, according to where stars fell between upright stones.    Exactly when people recognized race is anybody's guess too?    Because of Plutarch, I know that the concept of race is at least 2000 years old.     Greeks like Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Thales, and Aristotle are considered by learned people, to be ancient scientists..   

Some politically correct mor-on told you that science does not recognise race and you wanted to believe it so much that you accepted it without question.    That is the difference between you and me.   I question things when they don't make sense, and I look for alternate explanations which either make sense, or make more sense.        Which is why I can think straigh, and you can't.

Nomenclature

@Bogan

I am a bit perplexed at how you ran out of this arena screaming that you would never return

I'm a bit perplexed about why you tell such massive lies. Number one, you're not in an arena. Number two, you haven't seen me run anywhere. Number three, I haven't ever claimed I would never return.

Three lies in a single sentence and you wonder why nobody wants to talk to you? Lol.

Bogan

@Nomenclature

Obviously, Nommie, your brain has not evolved enough yet to understand metaphors.

Nomenclature

@Bogan

I think you're confused about what a metaphor is, which honestly doesn't surprise me. If I were to point out that you're an ignorant bag of spanners, that would be a metaphor. Falsely accusing me of running away and falsely accusing me of saying I would never return are simply good old fashioned lies.

Nomenclature

@Bogan

Science recognises the concept of race.

Lol. You're literally delusional, aren't you?

There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/people-and-culture/2018/04/theres-no-scientific-basis-for-race-its-a-made-up-label

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Can you change your race

The ongoing discussion of whether race is a social construct has me wondering.  If race is a social construct then why can't people change their race like they can their gender?

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

The ongoing discussion of whether race is a social construct has me wondering.  If race is a social construct then why can't people change their race like they can their gender?

That's a good try, but of course it's a fallacy. Science recognises that there are different genders, but not that there are different races. You can't change something which science says doesn't exist in the first place.

just_sayin

@Nomenclature
That doesn't make sense.  If science recognizes genders then they are more than social constructs.  Again, if race is a social construct as you said, then it is mutable and you should be able to change it, like gender.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

That doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense. Maybe you're just not intelligent enough to understand reason.

 If science recognizes genders then they are more than social constructs.

Than. Then is a period or moment of time.

And I didn't say genders are social constructs. Debate requires you to pay attention to what the other person says, not make it up to your own convenience.

just_sayin

@Nomenclature
Again, if you are arguing that gender is scientific, then that means it is rooted in biology.  If it is rooted in biolog,y then it is not mutable.  But as you argued, race is a social construct, therefore it can change.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

race is a social construct, therefore it can change.

Social constructs aren't real, so your hillbilly logic basically amounts to: "A ghost can become a vampire if it wants."

just_sayin

@Nomenclature
As you said "[s]ocial constructs aren't real".  They aren't rooted in biology, so they can change.  So again, what's the problem with someone changing their race?

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

As you said "[s]ocial constructs aren't real".  They aren't rooted in biology, so they can change.

They aren't real so they don't exist. You can't change something which doesn't exist, hillbilly. Can I change a unicorn into a werewolf?

Stop talking.

Bogan

I have already given Nommie two examples of science recognising race, but he is like a stuck record, endlessly on the same track.

Here is another example using biology.    Early biologists soon recognised that human beings were classic mammals.     But It took a very long time for these same biologists to recognise that human beings were part of the ape genus, and there was much opposition from the church when they did.   Basically, human beings are simply a species of ape which became progressively more intelligent until it became self aware, and it could begin to change the world to suite itself, instead of being entirely dependent upon the whims of it's environment to survive.

All forms of life comprise species and sub species.    Species do not just pop into existence.    They evolve from other species which change due to wildly differing climatic and environmental conditions.    A species which may evolve in a hot area may migrate to a cold area.    When it does, over time, it's appearance and even temperament will evolve in order to adapt to the changed environmental circumstance, until it eventually becomes a new species.      This does not happen overnight.    it occurs over long periods of time.     Therefore, every species undergoing change into another species will go through a transition period.    That is why many species of life forms have sub species, which just happens to be a scientific, biological term.  

 it is common to refer to sub species as "breeds" of a particular life form.    A quarter horse is recognised as a breed of horse, for example.     What applies to animals applies to humans.     Human races equate exactly with sub species.    Such sub species can, and do, be referred to as "breeds", but this is more commonly used to describe mixed race people who have the appearance characteristics of two races.  

Science can not deny the existence of race without explaining how the term sub species can not apply to human races.

"Social constructs" are just human invented classifications of known objects or phenomena.    'Species" is a social construct.   "Genus" is a social construct.     And sub species of animals, and races of humans, are a social construct.       To say that social constructs do not exist, is like saying that all classifications invented by the human mind can not exist

Race exists, sexual difference exists, and age exists.    A person can no more change their race, anymore than they can change their gender, or their age..    

Nomenclature

@Bogan

I have already given Nommie two examples of science recognising race

Your delusional rantings do not qualify as examples of anything except your flagrant distortions of logic and your childish denials of scientific fact.

Science can not deny the existence of race

And yet you have already been shown twice that it does. How puzzling.

There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/people-and-culture/2018/04/theres-no-scientific-basis-for-race-its-a-made-up-label

race does not exist

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/01/racism-science-human-genomes-darwin

Quite amusing really, that I'm being patronised by a science-denying, ultra nationalist neo-Nazi who can't formulate a solitary sentence without bending reality like silly putty.

Bogan

@Nomenclature

Nommie, I do not debate against links.    I have explained to you and others why this is so.    If you think that these "scientific" links you keep submitting have any merit, then read them, summarise them, and submit them as your own arguments

And I really hope you do that.   I have not read any of them, but I am certain I can tear them to shreds because they are just not true.. 

Nomenclature

@Bogan

Nommie, I do not debate against links

I posted the links to disprove your false claim that "science can not deny the existence of race". Were you under the impression that nobody is permitted to disprove your false claims?

just_sayin

@Nomenclature said: Can I change a unicorn into a werewolf?

Well of course you can.  Both are fictional creatures.  You can then change them and make the werewolf become part vampire like the WBs Originals and have the unicorn have soft serve ice cream come out of its butt.  Things that aren't real are easily changeable.  Things rooted in biology are not.  That's why it doesn't make sense when people argue you can change your gender because it is just a social construct, but can't change your race which they claim is a social construct.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

Well of course you can.  Both are fictional creatures.

If they are fictional then I can't change one into the other because neither of them exist. 

Stop talking. Please.

Dee

@Nomenclature

Hi Nom , I think it's a waste of time attempting to converse with the sneering half -wit Bogend , his genetic st-pidity is spectacular to say the least 

Nomenclature

@Dee

Completely agree with you. His particular racist brand of populism is difficult for me to stomach. 

Dee

@Nomenclature

He's a vile hate filled clown. This clown is yet another fan of Trump , he actually thought it a fact that the revolutionary army took over airports in 1775 because Trump said so ......his parents are recognised for being not the sharpest tools in the box but the pour souls were placing their hopes on the family lineage evolving until moon headed Bogend was born the family are now devolving 

Bogan

@Nomenclature ;  I posted the links to disprove your false claim that "science can not deny the existence of race". Were you under the impression that nobody is permitted to disprove your false claims?

You can try, and good luck doing that.    But I do not debate links, and I have explained the reasons why.     Read your links, summarise the points you agree with, and present them as a reasoned argument in your own words. 

Oooh, looky.   Nommie and Dee have a Mutual Admiration Society going.  

Dee

@Bogan

Oooh, looky.   Nommie and Dee have a Mutual Admiration Society going.  

Stop sulking. At least you detest everyone equally it seems , now run along to your meet up of the local Neo Nazis you don't want to get a spanking for being late 

Nomenclature

@Bogan

You can try, and good luck doing that.

I've already done it three times in this exact discussion (if indeed one can label your mindless ranting a discussion).

But I do not debate links

Nobody is asking you to debate a link. I'm asking you to read the link and acknowledge that your claims are false.

maxx

based upon your reasoning, then it is the whites who are the sub species or sub race. Humans were originally either black or very dark in color. @Bogan

Bogan

@maxx ;   based upon your reasoning, then it is the whites who are the sub species or sub race. Humans were originally either black or very dark in color. @Bogan 


Your premise is quite valid, maxx,.          Sub species exist because environmental conditions can exist in a widely dispersed species which causes genetic adaptations to evolve which allows an original  species to adapt better to it's own particular, and often wildly different, environment.      This results in sub species of the original species, which are usually identifiably different to the original species.    You are correct in saying that all humans on planet earth evolved from African blacks, although the Communist Chinese government refuses to acknowledge this.     As humans spread throughout the widely differing environments on this planet, climates changed and groups of human beings who were sedentary to a particular territory evolved adaptations that gave them an advantage over the original species for that particular environment.    White skin appears to be a genetic adaptation to cold climates.   Large noses an adaptation to dusty environments.   People who live in protein rich hot climates are usually tall and thin, while people who live in a protein poor cold climates may be short and squat, to preserve body heat. 

Genetic adaptation to climate and environment is not just limited to skin colour and appearance.        How the environment affects temperament and iQ is interesting to speculate, but cognitive metricians believe that people who lived for long periods in relatively advanced societies in cold climates where foresight was essential to survival, a evolved to become smarter, while those who live in the primary stage of human development in rich tropical environments have no evolutionary imperative to do so.   

Brown bears are present on all continents except Australia.    There are around 40 sub species of Brown bear and they are so similar that they can still breed with each other to create fertile hybrids.     But as time marches on, sub species will become genetically so diverse that they can no longer produce fertile offspring.     Horses, Zebras, and Donkeys, all once had a common ancestor.    They are examples of sub species which evolved so far away from the original species that they are no longer fertile with each other, although in all three species there are obvious physical similarities.   

MineSubCraftStarved

@Bogan What defines a race? Races are ultimately not much more than arbitrarily defined societal definitions placing people into categories if they hold certain physical attributes. Furthermore, scientific studies have proven that we are 99.9% genetically similar to each other, thus the amount of genetic advantage one 'race' may have on each other is at most negligible, but likely non-existent. Thus, given that races have no effect on your ethics, morality, or general personality traits/human characteristics(as they have no impact on your genetics), all races are inherently equal. The differences between people of certain races, such as their socioeconomic status, among others, can be attributed to individual performance and cultural aspects, rather than 'genetic advantages'.

Bogan

. Hi MSCS, welcome to debateIsland.

MSCS wrote   What defines a race? 

The English word "race" pertains to two meanings.    The first is singular and specific, as in "the human race", which equates with the human species.    The second definition pertains to a more broad concept of multiple races, which equates precisely with the scientific term of "sub species."    (or "breeds")

MSCS wrote   Races are ultimately not much more than arbitrarily defined societal definitions placing people into categories if they hold certain physical attributes. 

So do sub species.      Species such as cats, dogs, horses, sheep, and cattle exist, and within those species are sub species.    Take dogs.   The species is Canis lupus familiaris. but within that species are numerous sub species.   They all have the general characteristics of dogs but the different sub species (or breeds) can be very different in appearance, and very different in behaviour and temperament.     What applies to other mammals applies to the human mammal.

MSCS wrote     Furthermore, scientific studies have proven that we are 99.9% genetically similar to each other, thus the amount of genetic advantage one 'race' may have on each other is at most negligible, but likely non-existent. 

I don't know what percentage of genetic difference exists between animal sub species and human sub species, but I would not argue that your figure of 99.9% could be correct.    But it reasonable to conclude that whatever the percentage of genetic difference applies to human sub species, applies to other sub species as well.   Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that two sub species of dogs, Labradors and Japanese Akita's share the same percentage difference.   But they are very different in appearance and very different in behaviour.    If you have kids, I would not leave them to play with a Japanese Akita, even if his genome differs only 0.1% from a Labrador.    Obviously, very small differences in genomes can produce very different breeds of animals and people.

MSCS wrote    Thus, given that races have no effect on your ethics, morality, or general personality traits/human characteristics(as they have no impact on your genetics), all races are inherently equal. 

I disagree with all of that.   Intelligence is heritable and smart couples usually have smart offspring.      Smart people are usually successful people.     Du-mb people almost always have du-mb offspring.    Du-mb people are serious problem in every society except Muslim society, where they make excellent suicide bombers.      Du-mb people usually have a du-mb culture.  Have you ever listened to rap "music" where "singers" , instead of "singing" give speeches about the joys of raping their mothers, bashing their "hoes", taking drugs, and killing cops?   

If races were inherently equal then there would be equal outcomes in sport, the Olympic Games, crime rates, and general prosperity.    There isn't.    African descended people make superior runners and they dominate US football, and also those sports in the Olympics involving running.  But African descended people can not swim as fast as white people, so they do not even bother trying to compete in swimming at Olympic levels.    Dark skinned people evolved to exist in hot and sunny environments and so they have much superior solar protection for their skin.   Whites and Asians evolved to adapt to colder climates and they have to worry about skin cancer.    If an African lives in Canada, he or she must take vitamin D supplements or they will develop Ricketts.     The scientific book "the Bell Curve" collated 70 years of IQ testing and found that there was a 15 point difference in IQ between African Americans and white Americans.  It also found that Asians were smarter than whites, and Jews the smartest of everybody.  Surprise, surprise, that just about sums up the social layering of US society and the proportions of US university admissions, before "Affirmative Action" buggered everything up.   

MSCS wrote    The differences between people of certain races, such as their socioeconomic status, among others, can be attributed to individual performance and cultural aspects, rather than 'genetic advantages'.

I would refute that.     Social layering in every society is primarily geared to intelligence.     It does not take much critical thinking to figure out that the du-mbest people are on the bottom of society and the smartest at the top.     Smart people who find themselves in the lowest levels of society because of circumstance, are usually upwardly mobile.    Du-mb people stay on the lowest level of society on intergenerational welfare, and become repeat criminal offenders.        The idea that "all people are equal" was once a slogan of the socialist left, who also claimed that "class" was a social construct, and therefore it did not exist.    George Bernard Shaw wrote the book "Pygmalion" (My Fair Lady" which was a Cinderella tale in which an East End flower girl could be passed off as a Bohemian princess, if she just had a nice dress and elocution lessons.    But it was just a fantasy.    And your noble and humanitarian ideals that races are equal is just as big a fantasy as Pygmalion.  

And you won't hear the neo Marxists of today banging on about class equality.    The socialite socialists and Gucci greenies are the biggest social snobs around, who think that their own class of diplomaed Brahmin elites are intellectually superior to their lower class inferiors, and morally superior to the business and upper classes, who are usually their parents.   

 
  

MineSubCraftStarved

@Bogan
Dogs are not a separate species, they are in fact a subspecies of the species Canis lupus, in fact, there are around 39 different sub-species for the grey wolf, one of which is the domestic dog. Individual dog breeds are not sub-species. The main difference between dog breeds is not their genetic makeup, but rather their adrenaline levels, this leads to some genes being turned off more and some being turned which leads to different appearances and behavior. This does not apply to humans as all humans share roughly the same adrenaline levels and there are no differences between races in terms of behavior. As I have stated previously, race is simply the arbitrary assigning of people to different groups based on shared phenotypical(not genotypical) characteristics. Furthermore, whether or not different races are in-fact different subspecies is a matter of irrelevancy because phenotypical differences(from which subspecies are determined) do not affect your personality or intellectual capacity.

The differences between performance and outcome can be attributed to cultural differences between 'races', rather than inherent genetic differences. If someone from race A would be adopted into a household of race B, the person's outcome would be similar if not the same when compared to the other persons that were of race B. Why? Because race by itself generally has no effect on your success in life, and there have been countless examples to support my analogy. Additionally, there have been many people who have succeeded in various fields that you claim 'their race would not be able to do so'. The reason that Asian Americans, for example, tend to have higher IQ tests than White Americans is that Asian Americans have a better work and studying culture. I'm not denying the differences that a person's skin color may have in their environment. I am, however, contesting the fact that races have an effect on a person's intellectual capacity, especially given that races are only classifications on human phenotypical characteristics, rather than mental attributes, of which all races should be the same given how in all environments to survive would require similar amounts of intelligence.

The idea that all people are born with equal potential is true, and dividing up people based on arbitrarily created groups is not only unscientific but also deeply damaging to society. Class is a social construct as it only exists in the realm of society. In fact, the 'socialist left' often mistreated people based on characteristics they could not change, 'all people are equal was not their slogan'. For example, in the Soviet Union, if your ancestry(usually determined from your surname) was one of noble origin, it would be harder to obtain a job than from someone whose name was generally a surname used among the lower classes of Russian society prior to the revolution.

Nomenclature

@MineSubCraftStarved

Congratulations on a coherent and intelligent post. We don't get too many of these around here. 

Bogan

@Nomenclature

Especially from you.

Bogan

@MineSubCraftStarved ;    Dogs are not a separate species, they are in fact a subspecies of the species Canis lupus, in fact, there are around 39 different sub-species for the grey wolf, one of which is the domestic dog. Individual dog breeds are not sub-species.

 According to your own link, you are incorrect.     And I quote your wiki link "Dogs were the first species to be domesticated"  And, "Linnaeus considered the dog to be a separate species from the wolf because of its head and body and tail cauda recurvata - its upturning tail - which is not found in any other canid."      So, unless you can find something else, like a link, which validates your opinion, then I maintain that my premise is correct. 

 

MSCS quote   The main difference between dog breeds is not their genetic makeup, but rather their adrenaline levels, this leads to some genes being turned off more and some being turned which leads to different appearances and behavior.

 Hormone levels are controlled by genetics, my dear MSCS, unless you can think up another factor which controls hormone levels without genetics?      And since dog breeds vary very markedly in appearance, how you can think that this has no genetic basis is beyond me?

 

 MSCS quote    As I have stated previously, race is simply the arbitrary assigning of people to different groups based on shared phenotypical(not genotypical) characteristics.

 Human beings catagorise everything to help us think and predict, and those categories are usually based upon physical similarities between subjects.    You seem to suggest that there is something wrong with that?    Could you please explain why human beings catagorising stars, volcanoes, trees, rocks, soil, clouds, and everything else including humans, based upon their physical appearance, is inherently wrong or invalid?

 

MSCS wrote      Furthermore, whether or not different races are in-fact different subspecies is a matter of irrelevancy because phonotypical differences(from which subspecies are determined) do not affect your personality or intellectual capacity.

 We can see that sub species of animals can have very different appearances, temperaments, and intelligence.    Yet you seem to think that such a clearly observable fact can not affect human mammals?    Sorry, I don't buy that.      Especially since it is screamingly obvious to any impartial observer that human races do have different "bell curves" of intelligence, which results in different personalities, and different behaviours. 

  Jews of European descent won 27 per cent of the Nobel Prizes given to Americans in the past century, while making up only 3 per cent of the population. They produce more than half the world's chess champions.   As a race, they are particularly successful in western societies where merit and brains is supposed to be the reason for upward mobility.  Do you think the reason for that is because they have an average measured IQ higher than any other ethnic group for which there's reliable data?    And nearly six times as many people scoring above 140 compared with Europeans?   Intelligence can be, and usually is, heritable.  And if it is heritable, it is genetic. 

Now compare the behaviour and success of US Jews to indigenous Australians, and see if you can figure out if Jews and indigenous Australians have equal intelligence levels?  

Let's say that there was a town somewhere in the USA populated entirely with white Anglo-Saxon residents?     In that town, there were 23 year old grandmothers with grandchildren born with foetal alcohol syndrome.   There was rampant sexual abuse of children with kids under five being routinely screened for gonorrhoea.     The women in the town alleged widespread sexual abuse committed upon them by the town's male leaders.     These women were 34 times more likely to be hospitalised for domestic violence and 15 times more likely to be murdered than the women in surrounding towns.

 The entire adult population of that white town was entirely on intergenerational social welfare, and every two weeks when the government cheques rolled in, the whole town went on a three day drinking binge resulting in widespread violence and even riots where government supplied houses were burned to the ground.    The town's children suffered from lice and ringworm.    The kids would not go to school, and the government had to bribe parents with extra benefits to make their kids go to school.   In addition, the government had to provide cars and chauffeurs to take the kids to school and feed the kids, because their parents didn't bother.     These kids were five times more likely to be hospitalised for domestic assaults than the kids from surrounding towns.

 The only way that jobs could be created for the town's residents was to either make them public servants or by inventing taxpayer subsidised non jobs like picking up trash if they felt like it.    When their young men were farmed out to government subsidised jobs outside of their community, most had to be sent back because 75% of them failed drug and alcohol testing.    

 Then I think that any intelligent and rational person would conclude that the entire town's population was a bunch of low IQ morons, commonly referred to as white trash.   

 But well meaning and humanitarian people like your good self, ,who think that virtue signaling by displaying how non racist you are is more important than accepting self evident reality, will look for any reason to explain away aboriginal or other dysfunctional ethicity dysfunction, except the screamingly obvious one.

MSCS  quote    This does not apply to humans as all humans share roughly the same adrenaline levels and there are no differences between races in terms of behaviour.

 You are clearly wrong on at least one count.    Measured "bell curve" IQ levels of US African blacks are in the range of 70-85 while the most common bell curve measured IQ of US European whites today is 103.      Low intelligence ( or high intelligence) very much affects behaviour, as the comparison between jews and aborigines attests.       As to testosterone levels, that too is a factor of genetics.   And if young African male blacks who account for only around 4;5% of the US population account for 20% of US citizens incarcerated for serious crime, then I would opine that if testosterone levels have any bearing on criminal behaviour at all, then young male Africans must have it in abundance.    And I have read articles (but I can not provide links) which have claimed just that.

Nomenclature

@Bogan

According to your own link, you are incorrect.     And I quote your wiki link "Dogs were the first species to be domesticated"

He isn't incorrect. You are, as per usual.

A dog is a domestic mammal of the family Canidae and the order Carnivora. Its scientific name is Canis lupus familiaris. Dogs are a subspecies of the gray wolf, and they are also related to foxes and jackals.

https://www.britannica.com/animal/dog

Bogan

No response from MineSubCraftStarved yet?     Well, that is a pity.     It is so refreshing to debate with an intelligent person who debates fairly and in good faith.    This is in complete contrast to some of the brain deads who inhabit this site, who from their infantile responses I conclude that they are either 15 year olds, or who have such stunted intellectual development  that even though they may be adults, they still think like adolescents.

As is usual, when debating against an honest and intelligent opponent, they have found genuine flaws in my premises.     This has forced me to do more research to refine my basic arguments, and I now know that what I considered factual was not entirely correct, even though I was definitely on the right track.     I can now refine my reasoned arguments to include new information which reinforces my original premises that races are not equal.     

MineSubCraftStarved

@Bogan

 According to your own link, you are incorrect.     And I quote your wiki link "Dogs were the first species to be domesticated"  And, "Linnaeus considered the dog to be a separate species from the wolf because of its head and body and tail cauda recurvata - its upturning tail - which is not found in any other canid."      So, unless you can find something else, like a link, which validates your opinion, then I maintain that my premise is correct. 

A species is defined as any group of organisms with the ability to produce fertile offspring. By this definition, dogs are definitely a subspecies(and a member of the wolf, or Canis Lupus species) as they have been known to reproduce with other wolves and produce fertile offspring.

 Hormone levels are controlled by genetics, my dear MSCS, unless you can think up another factor that controls hormone levels without genetics.      And since dog breeds vary very markedly in appearance, how you can think that this has no genetic basis is beyond me.

Adrenaline levels are a single gene out of tens of thousands. This small difference amounts to great differences in appearance and behavior, and this effect is not only limited to dogs.
An experiment by Russian scientists on foxes showed that when adrenaline levels decreased, different physical appearances and behavioral changes began to take effect. A similar effect has happened with dogs, wherein adrenaline differences produced such major differences, rather than genetic differences.

Now compare the behavior and success of US Jews to indigenous Australians, and see if you can figure out if Jews and indigenous Australians have equal intelligence levels.  

If both a person of Hebrew descent and a person of Aboriginal were to grow up in the same household, with the same environment, and go to the same school. You would expect that their outcome would be the same. The differences between races in aspects of let's say, intelligence, can most accurately be marked up as cultural differences rather than genetic differences. This is seen by the fact that, for example, those of Hebrew descent generally have a culture of studying, reading books, and pursuing intellectual and educational goals first and foremost. While those of Aboriginal descent may not have the same culture generally, and thus may perform differently. This doesn't prove any hereditary difference, rather it simply shows that different cultures may try to achieve different things and thus may have different outcomes.

 We can see that subspecies of animals can have very different appearances, temperaments, and intelligence.    Yet you seem to think that such a clearly observable fact can not affect human mammals?    Sorry, I don't buy that.      Especially since it is screamingly obvious to any impartial observer that human races do have different "bell curves" of intelligence, which results in different personalities and different behaviors. 

You have thus far failed to provide any evidence that genetic differences are the reasons that there exist demographic discrepancies between races. You have only provided a correlation of traits between races, rather than proving that certain intelligence or personality traits are caused by race. Additionally, any person of any race can be a prodigy, or a great runner, just like any person of any race can be downright idiotic and unathletic, race has had a minimal effect on what someone may achieve.

 You are clearly wrong on at least one count.    Measured "bell curve" IQ levels of US African blacks are in the range of 70-85 while the most common bell curve measured IQ of US European whites today is 103.      Low intelligence ( or high intelligence) very much affects behaviour, as the comparison between jews and aborigines attests.       As to testosterone levels, that too is a factor of genetics.   And if young African male blacks who account for only around 4;5% of the US population account for 20% of US citizens incarcerated for serious crime, then I would opine that if testosterone levels have any bearing on criminal behaviour at all, then young male Africans must have it in abundance.    And I have read articles (but I can not provide links) which have claimed just that.

Your main fallacy in this argument is the belief that correlation is the same as causation. Take for instance the statement: "Most people who drink milk get into car crashes." Although this may be a true statement, and that the consumption of milk may indeed correlate with car crashes, this does not mean that if I drink milk I am more likely to get into a car crash. Why? Because only correlation was proven between the two variables, there was no causation data to suggest that drinking milk causes car crashes. In your argument, you claim that since young African American males occupy a disproportionate level of serious crimes, therefore, there is a correlation between African Americans and crime and thus that is evidenced that being African American causes you to commit more crimes. However this is not necessarily true, there could be a multitude of reasons that African Americans commit more crimes. Such as, poverty levels, lack of police, lack of education, individual choices and cultural aspects, etc. However, your claim that genetics has an intrinsic role to play in this is without evidence, and you have shown no scientific papers supporting your evidence that African Americans are significantly more predisposed to commit crimes, measure lower on IQ tests and have higher testosterone levels. You haven't provided any real scientific data to suggest that hereditary reasons cause differences between races in terms of education, crime, income, and intelligence.